5200 From: Antony 
Date: Thu May 10, 2001 1:57pm
Subject: Re: uprooting your kilesa?

 
  I guess rare are those who SEE without a teacher to give them some 
idea of how to see.

The reality of these things is in the practice and the experience I 
think. So only few people either stumble across it or have the 
conditions to recognise these things as they form. So a teacher is 
useful, if not critical. 

There is a saying I have come to like, it is this: That suttas are 
not for reading, they are for practicing with. The Buddha taught what 
should be implemented. Suttas are not novels.  They are great stories 
but that is a limited understanding and almost a waste. I always 
think though that the reading of them is better than not reading 
them, not withstanding the possible danger of misunderstanding. As 
we've seen lately on our list here the mind states that assumptions 
about ourselves and the dhamma can generate can make us downright 
rude.

I love the Zen saying "only don't know" I don't say I know for sure, 
that's why I am here, to be in cybersangha with the wise, as the 
Buddha suggests, it is one of the causes of happiness. 

I'll think of something to say about the Gihi Sutta.

antony


--- Jonothan Abbott wrote:
> Antony
> 
> --- Antony wrote:
> > It always seems to me that Buddha taught many different people 
> > different things. 
> 
> I'm sure this is exactly right.  And it is often not apparent from 
a 
> casual reading of a sutta who the listeners were or what their 
> particular circumstances might have been.  Yet this is all 
necessary 
> stuff if we are to understand the sutta properly.  For example, if 
a 
> sutta about samatha was addressed to monks who were already well 
> established in samatha, or in mindfulness (or both), that would have
> a 
> bearing on how we 'read' that teaching.  That is why an fairly 
> extensive knowledge of the suttas (and the other pitakas) is
> necessary 
> in order to understand any part of the teachings.
> 
> > It might be the case that as you say that tranquility  is not 
> > neccesary. I would think that could be true. It seems to be that
> the 
> > Buddha used it though. That says to me that it must be useful to 
a 
> > high degree.
> 
> That is indeed true.  Samatha (tranquillity) is kusala of a very 
high 
> degree, and is of course to be encouraged.  But it should not be 
> confused with satipatthana or vipassana.  And like satipatthana and 
> vipassana, it is not easy to understand and therefore not easy to 
> develop.  Samatha cannot be developed without a precise 
understanding 
> of whether the citta (moment of consciousness) is kusala or 
akusala.  
> One who develops satipatthana will also be able to develop samatha.
> 
> > There are teachings of Buddha where he details the recollections, 
> > Buddhagosa uses the sutras in the Vissudhimagga. 
> 
> In the introductory part of Visuddhimagga there is an interesting 
> passage which shows just how necessary it is to have a proper 
command 
> of the whole teachings in order to see clearly the message that the 
> Buddha was trying to deliver, and how easy it would be to 
misconstrue 
> what is being said.  At Vis.I,6 it says -
> 
> "In some instances this path of purification is taught by insight 
> alone, according as it is said: 
> `Formations are all impermanent: 
> `When he sees thus with understanding 
> `And turns away from what is ill, 
> `That is the path to purity'  (Dh. 277).
> 
> And in some instances by jhana and understanding according as it is 
> said: 
> `He is near unto nibbana 
> `In whom are jhana and understanding'  (Dh. 372). 
> 
> And in some instances by deeds (kamma), etc., according as it 
> is said: 
> `By deeds, vision and righteousness, 
> `By virtue, the sublimest life – 
> `By these are mortals purified, 
> `And not by lineage and wealth'   (M.iii,262) 
>   
> And in some instances by virtue, etc., according as it is said: 
> `He who is possessed of constant virtue, 
> `Has understanding, and is concentrated, 
> `Is strenuous and diligent as well, 
> `Will cross the flood so difficult to cross'   (S.i, 53). 
> 
> And in some instances by the Foundations of Mindfulness, etc., 
> according as it is said: 
> `Bhikkhus, this path is the only way for the purification of
> beings, . 
> . . for the realization of nibbana, that is to say, the four 
> Foundations of Mindfulness' (D.ii, 290); and similarly in the
> case of 
> the right efforts, and so on.  But in the answer to this question 
it 
> is taught by virtue and the other two."
> [ends]
> 
> It would be easy, taking any one of those quotes on its own, to 
come 
> away with a wrong idea of the teaching.  Nothing is as
> straightforward 
> as it seems!
> 
> Jon
> 
> PS  Would like to discuss your al

 
5201 From: Sarah Procter Abbott   
Date: Thu May 10, 2001 2:04pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Introduction and a question from a new person

 
  Dear Paul,

I'm very glad you've found your way here and you've
opened with a very helpful intro and THE important
question....thankyou very much for raising it and we
look forward to hearing a lot more from you. 

The last few days have been pretty quiet and now there
are lots of really good points and comments and
questions to respond to by anyone....I'll try myself
to get back on this and others as soon as I have some
precious time!

Joyce, also good to see you back in great form! I
especially appreciated the questions to Erik in your
first post ;-))

Speak soon,
Sarah



--- Paul Bail wrote: > Hello dear list
members,
> 
>     By way of introduction I am a 54 year old male,
> living on the East Coast 
> of the United States, interested in Buddhdharma. In
> the past year I ahve 
> become aware of some of the resources on the
> Internet, including the 
> wonderful world of lists.
>     I am a newcomer to this particular list, having
> recently stumbled across 
> it due to a comment someone made on another list.  A
> few years ago I read one 
> of Nina van Gorkom's books.  But it is only in the
> past couple of months that 
> an interest has begun in actually studying
> Abdhidamma. Lacking the education 
> to use the correct technical terms, I will have to
> phrase my question in 
> everyday language.
>     I have long been confused about the role of
> intention and effort given 
> the fact of selflessness.  I can appreciate the
> teaching that ther is no 
> "self" that can control one's progress on the path
> of truth.  Finding the 
> path, finding a teacher, recognizing the truth of
> the teachings, deepening 
> one's study, and adhering to the path all depend
> upon conditions and are not 
> in the direct control of a self that can "make" one
> do any of the above.
>     Still, it seems that effort and intention play a
> role in the process. The 
> Buddha set forth the noble truth of suffering and
> its cessation as the 
> gateway to the path.  Therefore one begins with an
> intention to end one's 
> suffering by pursuing the eightfold path. This is a
> desire, but unlike 
> ordinary desires, it begins to deconstruct itself as
> one glimpses the truth 
> that in fact there is no "self" that is suffering.
>     So, when I read the post below (# 5171) I was a
> little confused.  Perhaps 
> this is a semantic confusion, not a substantial one.
>  Hopefully someone can 
> clarify? The post says: "If we open a sutta about
> metta with the intention to 
> have metta, it shows the clinging to self again." 
> What is meant by this?
>     If one starts with the desire to end suffering,
> as the Buddha suggests, 
> and realizes that the path includes the accumulation
> of wisom *and* merit, 
> including the cultivation of virtuous states of mind
> such as metta, then 
> wouldn't one engage in activities that seem to
> promote the arising of metta?  
> One could think that reading the sutta,
> contemplating it, etc. could provide 
> conditions favorable to the arising of metta?  Of
> course, one cannot *make* 
> metta arise by doing this.  Also it could (at times)
> be unskillful to turn to 
> sutta reading in order to avoid investigating an
> unpleasant state of mind 
> that is arising. 
>     Or to take another example--dana.  One engages
> in the physical act of 
> giving but becomes aware that a mental state of
> generosity may not be 
> arising, or may arise momentarily and be followed by
> second-thoughts, 
> regrets, etc.  One sees the selflessness of this
> process.  One cannot *make* 
> generosity arise.  Nevertheless, the act of giving
> is preferable to 
> non-giving. The intention, or wish, to cultivate
> generosity still seems to 
> have some place in the process of the path, does it
> not?
>     I would presume that the point is not to forego
> sutta reading, or acts of 
> generosity.  Do you feel sutta reading is a good
> activity if done with 
> correct understanding, not expecting it to be like
> putting a coin in a 
> machine and getting a candy in return?
> 
> Paul Bail
>     
> ----------------
> Sarah wrote:
> > now if we understand the difference between kusala
> and
> > akusala. It is important to know the intention. If
> we
> > open a sutta about metta with the intention to
> have
> > metta, it shows the clinging to self again. the
> > understanding is always the key, so there can be
> > understanding of metta when it arises naturally by
> > conditions. This is the way that samtha is
> developed,
> > not by wishing to develop it or by selecting an
> object
> > like breath for development. There was also a  lot
> > more discussion about breath as object of samatha.



5202 From: Sarah Procter Abbott   
Date: Thu May 10, 2001 3:27pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Tanha(JIM ,sarah)

 
  Dear Jim, Rob and Wyn,

Just a real quickie which may be quite
off-track...Like Rob, I'm keen to pursue this tanha!

> --- Jim Anderson  wrote:
> > Dear Robert,
> > 
> > While checking several versions of the commentary
> on A ii 146
> > I noticed a
> > possible error in the following translated
> section:
> > 
> > >Now
> > >(it may be asked) whether such present craving
> (for
> > Arahantship)
> > >is wholesome [kusala] or unwholesome [akusala]? —
> It is
> > >unwholesome.
> > 
> > The answer - unwholesome (akusalaa) is supported
> by the PTS
> > and the
> > Burmese CSCD versions but not by the Thai Budsir
> version which
> > has
> > 'kusalaa' as the answer. The footnote in the PTS
> edition notes
> > that a
> > Mandalay ms. and the Siamese ed. of 1920 reads
> 'kusalaa'. This
> > is quite
> > interesting as it is a discrepancy that can easily
> go
> > unnoticed. My gut
> > feeling is that 'kusalaa' is the correct answer.
> It is
> > contrary to dhamma to
> > state that the unwholesome is to be pursued
> (sevitabba) as in
> > the reading of
> > the PTS ed. (AA iii 136). 

Just assuming for now that akusalaa is correct (my gut
feeling for now!). When it says in the commentary 'It
is unwholesome.-Should it be pursued or not? - it
SHOULD be pursued (sevitabbaa)...' ,is it possible
that sevitabbaa refers not to the tanha but to the
wisdom in the passage I quoted before: 

'Sister, as to the saying: "This body has come into
being through craving, is dependent on craving; 
craving must be abandoned,"- it was said in this
connexion.

Herein, sister, a monk hears it said: "They say that
such and such a monk, by destroying the asavas,
himself in this very life thoroughly comprehending it,
realizes the heart's release, the release by wisdom,
that is free from the asavas, and having attained it
abides therein." then some time later, though
dependent on craving, he abandons craving.  As to the
saying, sister, that body has come into being through
craving, is dependent on craving, craving must be
abandoned, - whatever was said thus was said in this
connexion.'

We also know that
> 'ta.nhaa' can be
> > either
> > wholesome or unwholesome from the Nettippakara.na
> passage (p.
> > 87).
> > 
> > I suppose that most of us had been thinking that
> 'ta.nhaa' is
> > 'lobha' in the
> > paramattha terminology but could it be something
> else --
> > 'chanda'??

If one looks at all the refs to tanha in the Vism and
Vibhanga, this still seems unlikely to me...eben if
they are related to nekkhamma, if they are akusala
they are akusala..
> > 
> > I also glanced through three layers of commentary
> on the
> > Nettippakara.na
> > passage regarding  the twofold ta.nhaa which have
> quite a lot
> > to say about
> > it. I didn't study them as there is just too much
> to take in
> > (1 or 2 pages
> > altogether) without spending a lot of time. This
> is just to
> > let you know
> > that the comments are there.

slowly, slowly, Jim!

Thanks for your comments as always,

Sarah

(Joyce, pls note that apart from Jim and Teng Kee and
one or two others, none of us are Pali or Sanskrit
scholars....;-))



 
5203 From: Ai Lin Edwards   
Date: Thu May 10, 2001 8:19pm
Subject: Hello everybody, I am new here

 
  Hello everybody,

I am AiLin here, Eric (I know him as Sam A. Vacca at other forums)directed 
me here. Thanks Eric, I eventually get through to this site.

I am a Chinese Buddhist, practising Vipassana for about ten years now. I am 
from Malaysia and get my first taste of vipassana under Rev. Sujiva (late 
Mahasi Sayadaw's lineage). I do my self-study on buddha dhamma whenever I 
can. I reside in Australia right now and a regular at both Roshi Hogen's and 
Edepot Buddhist Discussion Forum.

I like what I see here, and will visit very often from now on.

I have not much to offer right now, but find useful information here and 
much to chew on. I'll try to read back all previous posts and hopefully get 
some answers to my questions in my mind. I'll raise further questions to old 
discussion topic if you people don't mind.

My warmest regards to everybody here.

Sincerely,

AiLin

 
5204 From: Howard 
Date: Thu May 10, 2001 7:33pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Introduction and a question from a new person

 
  Hi, Paul and Sarah -

In a message dated 5/10/01 7:52:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Paul Bail writes:


> Hello dear list members,
> 
>     By way of introduction I am a 54 year old male, living on the East 
> Coast 
> of the United States, interested in Buddhdharma. In the past year I ahve 
> become aware of some of the resources on the Internet, including the 
> wonderful world of lists.
>     I am a newcomer to this particular list, having recently stumbled 
> across 
> it due to a comment someone made on another list.  A few years ago I read 
> one 
> of Nina van Gorkom's books.  But it is only in the past couple of months 
> that 
> an interest has begun in actually studying Abdhidamma. Lacking the 
> education 
> to use the correct technical terms, I will have to phrase my question in 
> everyday language.
>     I have long been confused about the role of intention and effort given 
> the fact of selflessness.  I can appreciate the teaching that ther is no 
> "self" that can control one's progress on the path of truth.  Finding the 
> path, finding a teacher, recognizing the truth of the teachings, deepening 
> one's study, and adhering to the path all depend upon conditions and are 
> not 
> in the direct control of a self that can "make" one do any of the above.
>     Still, it seems that effort and intention play a role in the process. 
> The 
> Buddha set forth the noble truth of suffering and its cessation as the 
> gateway to the path.  Therefore one begins with an intention to end one's 
> suffering by pursuing the eightfold path. This is a desire, but unlike 
> ordinary desires, it begins to deconstruct itself as one glimpses the truth 
> that in fact there is no "self" that is suffering.
>     So, when I read the post below (# 5171) I was a little confused.  
> Perhaps 
> this is a semantic confusion, not a substantial one.  Hopefully someone can 
> clarify? The post says: "If we open a sutta about metta with the intention 
> to 
> have metta, it shows the clinging to self again."  What is meant by this?
>     If one starts with the desire to end suffering, as the Buddha suggests, 
> and realizes that the path includes the accumulation of wisom *and* merit, 
> including the cultivation of virtuous states of mind such as metta, then 
> wouldn't one engage in activities that seem to promote the arising of 
> metta?  
> One could think that reading the sutta, contemplating it, etc. could 
> provide 
> conditions favorable to the arising of metta?  Of course, one cannot *make* 
> metta arise by doing this.  Also it could (at times) be unskillful to turn 
> to 
> sutta reading in order to avoid investigating an unpleasant state of mind 
> that is arising. 
>     Or to take another example--dana.  One engages in the physical act of 
> giving but becomes aware that a mental state of generosity may not be 
> arising, or may arise momentarily and be followed by second-thoughts, 
> regrets, etc.  One sees the selflessness of this process.  One cannot 
> *make* 
> generosity arise.  Nevertheless, the act of giving is preferable to 
> non-giving. The intention, or wish, to cultivate generosity still seems to 
> have some place in the process of the path, does it not?
>     I would presume that the point is not to forego sutta reading, or acts 
> of 
> generosity.  Do you feel sutta reading is a good activity if done with 
> correct understanding, not expecting it to be like putting a coin in a 
> machine and getting a candy in return?
> 
> Paul Bail
>     
> ----------------
> Sarah wrote:
> > now if we understand the difference between kusala and
> > akusala. It is important to know the intention. If we
> > open a sutta about metta with the intention to have
> > metta, it shows the clinging to self again. the
> > understanding is always the key, so there can be
> > understanding of metta when it arises naturally by
> > conditions. This is the way that samtha is developed,
> > not by wishing to develop it or by selecting an object
> > like breath for development. There was also a  lot
> > more discussion about breath as object of samatha.
> 
> 
=================================
       I agree with you, Paul. I found myself perplexed with regard to 
several points of Khun Sujin's reported by you, Sarah. It seems to me that 
what KS is talking against, and you, Paul, are talking in favor of, would 
usually be considered as a simple instance of right intention. KS *seems* to 
me to be following a bit of a fatalistic, volition-is-useless tack. Perhaps I 
miss-read her.

With metta,
Howard


/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./            (From the Diamond Sutra)                    
            
                                         



 
5205 From: Sarah Procter Abbott   
Date: Fri May 11, 2001 6:45am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] notes from Bkk

 
  WARNING: lots of pali and fiddly abhidhamma points
here. If you wish to skip, pls do!

Dear Kom and Num,

I'm giving this point priority because of my
carelessness and also because it's a tricky area for
me and I wish to clarify it for myself too. Some other
areas were discussed for an hour or so, but this one
for a couple of minutes only. I'd planned to follow up
on the last day, but it wasn't appropriate and so I'm
looking at texts to help me along too.

> 5. RUPAS (Num's qus). Num said he doubts which rupa
> is
> a result of kamma and asked about hair,eye, skin
> colour etc, good-looking appearance..how can these
> be
> explained when kamma can cause only the
> kammaja-rupa?

As this question relates to an earlier post of Num's
(which I don't think was answered, hence my
consideration of it), for newbies, I'll requote
extracts from Num's (but just his first question for
now!) and then add some extra details. It may be a
little long for some!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
NUM wrote (24th April):

Here is a quote from Dhammastudy.com

<<<<<<<<<<<

Kammaja-rupa
There are 9 rupa that arise specifically from kamma as
samutthana, never from 
other samutthana:

1. Cakkhuppasada-rupa 2. Sotappasada-rupa 3.
Ghanappasada-rupa 4. 
Jivhappasada-rupa 5. Kayappasada-rupa 6.
Itthibhava-rupa 7. Purisabhava-rupa  
     
8. Hadaya-rupa 9. Jivitindriya-rupa

.......................................................

I don't think kamma is a paccaya for outer rupas,
sound, smell, flavor 
hard-soft-heat-cold-tension and color are pretty much
utuja-rupa, rupa that 
arise from utu as samutthana.

I still doubt that which rupa is a result of kamma.
Here are my questions.

QUES. 1. Is hair, eye, or skin color is result of
kamma.  Or when it's said 
that to be born with good looking appearance is a
result of kamma.  If kamma 
can be cause of only 9 kammaja-rupa as above, how you
explain it?   In 
tipitaka, there repeatedly mentioned about praise for
skin color, I wonder is 
that result of kamma or just plain genetics or
something else.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sarah again:

I think the main point to remember is that whatever
rupa arises, there have to be the 4 great elements and
the 4 derived rupas (visible object, odour, flavour
and nutrition) as well. 

Now I'm quoting from KS's 'Survey of Paramatha
Dhammas' from Zolag website http://www.zolag.co.uk/
in Appendix 111: to Rupa:
=================================================

'The nine types of kammaja rúpas are derived rúpas,
upådåya rúpas, which have to arise together with the
eight inseparable rúpas, avinibbhoga rúpas. There are
the following groups or kalåpas originated from kamma:

1. the decad of the eyesense, cakkhudasaka  kalåpa,
consisting of the eight inseparable rúpas, eyesense
and life faculty.
2. the decad of earsense, sotadasaka kalåpa,
consisting of the eight inseparable rúpas, earsense
and life faculty.
3. the decad of smellingsense, ghånadasaka kalåpa,
consisting of the eight inseparable rúpas,
smellingsense and life faculty.
4. the decad of tastingsense, jivhådasaka kalåpa,
consisting of the eight inseparable rúpas,
tastingsense and life faculty. 
5. the decad of bodysense, kåyadasaka kalåpa,
consisting of the eight inseparable rúpas, bodysense
and life faculty. 
6. the decad of femininity, itthibhåvadasaka kalåpa,
consisting of the eight inseparable rúpas, femininity
and life faculty.
7. the decad of masculinity, purisabhåvadasaka kalåpa,
consisting of the eight inseparable rúpas, masculinity
and life faculty.
8. the decad of heart-base, hadayadasaka kalåpa,
consisting of the eight inseparable rúpas, heart-base
and life faculty.
9. the vital nonad, jívitanavaka  kalåpa, consisting
of the eight inseparable rúpas and life faculty. 

Groups of rúpa originated from kamma arise at the
arising moment, the upåda khaùa, of the
rebirth-consciousness, paìisandhi- citta, in
accordance with the plane of existence where one is
born. Kamma produces rúpa at the three moments of each
citta, namely, at the arising moment, uppåda khaùa,
the moment of presence, tiììhi khaùa, and the moment
of falling away, bhanga khaùa . Kamma ceases to
produce rúpa shortly before death, that is to say,
from the seventeenth moment of citta reckoned backward
from the dying-consciousness. Thus, all kammajarúpa
falls away together with the dying-consciousness,
cuti-citta, at the end of a lifespan.
For those who are born by way of the womb, in the
human plane of existence, there are three kalåpas of
kammajarúpa, groups of rúpa originated from kamma,
arising together with the rebirth-consciousness. These
three kalåpas are: the decad of heart-base, the decad
of bodysense and the decad of sex. As the newborn
being develops, the kalåpas which are the decads of
the eyesense, the earsense, the smellingsense and the
tastingsense arise at the appropriate time.' 
=====================================================

This detail is  given in the Abhidammattha Sangaha.
Just to clarify on which rupas exactly are produced by
kamma (and to add some textual support!), I'm now
quoting from the B.Bodhi's 'Abhidammattha
Sangaha'V1,10 p.247:

" Eighteen kinds of material phenomena are produced by
kamma; the five sensitivities; the two sex faculties;
the life faculty; the heart-base-arise exclusively
from kamma. The other nine kinds arise from kamma only
when they occur in the kamma-born groups; otherwise
they originate from the other causes".

Num, I hope this last sentence clarifies.

A little further on the AS discusses the 21 material
groups produced by kamma, consciousness, temperature
and nutriment, but I've given enough detail for one
post!

Perhaps I can now correct my original brief summary to
say that what we take for hair, skin colour,
good-looking appearance and the rest are the
kayadasaka kalapa (decad of bodysense) including the 8
inseperable rupas which condition each other and the
bodysense. The kalapa is conditioned by kamma.
According to my recollection of what KS said, vanno
(visible object, NOT cakkhupasada rupa!) is of
significance here. 

As we know, conditions are very complicated. I think I
have to leave it here to Kom (and Jack)!

Hope this helps a little.....

Sarah



5206 From: Sarah Procter Abbott   
Date: Fri May 11, 2001 6:59am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Hello everybody, I am new here

 
  Dear Ai Lin,

Warmest regards and welcome to dsg. Eric has been
challenging us all with his debates and has become a
key participant here recently! If you start calling
him Sam, we'll now understand, thank you!! <Eric, the
twins in 'Lord of the Flies' are called Sam 'n Eric,
is this the connection??>

Of course you're very welcome to bring up old
discussion topics or any dhamma topics you like.

Thanks for the other info too...we have a few members
in Malaysia and in Australia. Whereabouts are you
living there? We've lived in Hong Kong for a longtime,
but Jon is from Australia.

Look forward to haring more from you,

Sarah

--- Ai Lin Edwards  wrote:
> Hello everybody,
> 
> I am AiLin here, Eric (I know him as Sam A. Vacca at
> other forums)directed 
> me here. Thanks Eric, I eventually get through to
> this site.
> 
> I am a Chinese Buddhist, practising Vipassana for
> about ten years now. I am 
> from Malaysia and get my first taste of vipassana
> under Rev. Sujiva (late 
> Mahasi Sayadaw's lineage). I do my self-study on
> buddha dhamma whenever I 
> can. I reside in Australia right now and a regular
> at both Roshi Hogen's and 
> Edepot Buddhist Discussion Forum.
> 
> I like what I see here, and will visit very often
> from now on.
> 
> I have not much to offer right now, but find useful
> information here and 
> much to chew on. I'll try to read back all previous
> posts and hopefully get 
> some answers to my questions in my mind. I'll raise
> further questions to old 
> discussion topic if you people don't mind.
> 
> My warmest regards to everybody here.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> AiLin



 
5207 From: Desmond Chiong   
Date: Wed May 9, 2001 11:44pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Kusala etc.

 
  ">Sorry, not a scholar, don't know Pali or Sanskrit.>" [joyce]

But I "know" you. Dharma is universal.

metta,
des




>From: "Joyce Short" 
>Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Kusala etc.
>Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 10:02:00 -0400
>
>
>
> >> I must disagree with this. It is much better to unload akusala
> >> vipaka
> >> as quickly as possible,
>
>
>Who? is unloading akusala vipaka as quickly as possible?
>
> >> because it vipaka grows in power (and
> >> conditions more kamma of the same variety) the longer it
> >> remains
> >> untreated, like a festering wound gets worse, not better, if
> >> left
> >> uncleaned and bandaged. Therefore one should work very
> >> diligently to
> >> purify any akusala as soon as one becomes aware of its
> >> arising.
>
>Who? is working diligently, becoming aware of its arising etc.  And what is
>arising whatever surely just arises, endures and then dissolves on its own
>accord?  Who is placing a value judgment on any arising and when is this
>judgment noted. Surely all this is occurring after the event?  Is this
>noted? How is one noting "conceptuality" without clinging?
>
>One Tibetan Rinpoche pointed out to me that all arisings when
>recognized,(moment of contact) are an expression of intrinsic nature - its
>energy, purity and intelligence.  In this recognition, then there cannot be
>any duality, any "I" and "mine", the essential akusala.  Is there something
>apart from consciousness? (awareness) Mind can create an object or 
>structure
>called meditator who then notes other objects -but any objects noted are 
>the
>energetic expression of consciousness noted by knowing and not other than
>the meditator construct.
>
>Sorry, not a scholar, don't know Pali or Sanskrit.
>
>Metta,
>
>Joyce


 
5208 From: Kom Tukovinit   
Date: Fri May 11, 2001 9:49am
Subject: Re: notes from Bkk

 
  Dear Sarah,

Thanks for following up.  I still don't think K. Num's question was 
answered (unless K. Num says otherwise!).  Let me relate my (private) 
conversation with him on this issue to see if others may have other 
opinion.

My understanding is that each rupa kalapa that we may consider "our" 
rupa has one of the following as samuthana:
1) Kamma 
2) Utu 
3) Ahara
4) Citta 

a) It is exceedingly difficult (impossible for me!) to differentiate among =

these rupas.  For example, when we see the vanna that "is part of" our 
hand, which samuthana does it have?

b) In the human plane, each one of us has only 7 types of kalapas that 
has Kamma as the samuthana.  This counts out the Jivithindriya kalapa 
(even though all other 8 kalapas also have Jivithindriya rupa), and one of =

the Bhava Kalapa (unless you are of two sexes)..

c) Out of the seven, 5 occur at very specific places in our body.  The 5 
includes: eye sense, ear sense, smell sense, taste sense, and hadaya-
rupa.  The other two including Bhava rupa and Kaya-pasada rupa are 
spreaded all over your body, internal and external.

d) The speculation of how Kamma can influence one's look is via the two 
rupas that are spreaded throughout your body.   Although a hair 
probably mostly comprises of Utuja-rupa, but in the beginning when 
there are still "live" cells, its looks may be highly influenced by Kamma-
rupas.  Furthermore, some of the continuing Utuja rupas have, as 
samuthana, the utu rupa that is part of the kamma kalapa.

e) One's look is not influenced by Kamma alone.  For example, Buddha 
is supposed to have unparalleled beauty.  However, when he was going 
through dukkha-kiriya-practice, he ate so little that he was no longer 
beautiful.  His Ahara-ja rupa cancelled out the beauty in the Kammaja-
rupa.  Some people don't look so pretty when they get angry or greedy.  
Some people don't look so pretty when they are cold or hot.

kom
--- Sarah Procter Abbott  
wrote:
> WARNING: lots of pali and fiddly abhidhamma points
> here. If you wish to skip, pls do!
> 
> Dear Kom and Num,
> 
> I'm giving this point priority because of my
> carelessness and also because it's a tricky area for
> me and I wish to clarify it for myself too. Some other
> areas were discussed for an hour or so, but this one
> for a couple of minutes only. I'd planned to follow up
> on the last day, but it wasn't appropriate and so I'm
> looking at texts to help me along too.
> 
> > 5. RUPAS (Num's qus). Num said he doubts which rupa
> > is
> > a result of kamma and asked about hair,eye, skin
> > colour etc, good-looking appearance..how can these
> > be
> > explained when kamma can cause only the
> > kammaja-rupa?
> 
> As this question relates to an earlier post of Num's
> (which I don't think was answered, hence my
> consideration of it), for newbies, I'll requote
> extracts from Num's (but just his first question for
> now!) and then add some extra details. It may be a
> little long for some!
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> NUM wrote (24th April):
> 
> Here is a quote from Dhammastudy.com
> 
> <<<<<<<<<<<
> 
> Kammaja-rupa
> There are 9 rupa that arise specifically from kamma as
> samutthana, never from 
> other samutthana:
> 
> 1. Cakkhuppasada-rupa 2. Sotappasada-rupa 3.
> Ghanappasada-rupa 4. 
> Jivhappasada-rupa 5. Kayappasada-rupa 6.
> Itthibhava-rupa 7. Purisabhava-rupa  
>      
> 8. Hadaya-rupa 9. Jivitindriya-rupa
> 
> .......................................................
> 
> I don't think kamma is a paccaya for outer rupas,
> sound, smell, flavor 
> hard-soft-heat-cold-tension and color are pretty much
> utuja-rupa, rupa that 
> arise from utu as samutthana.
> 
> I still doubt that which rupa is a result of kamma.
> Here are my questions.
> 
> QUES. 1. Is hair, eye, or skin color is result of
> kamma.  Or when it's said 
> that to be born with good looking appearance is a
> result of kamma.  If kamma 
> can be cause of only 9 kammaja-rupa as above, how you
> explain it?   In 
> tipitaka, there repeatedly mentioned about praise for
> skin color, I wonder is 
> that result of kamma or just plain genetics or
> something else.
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> Sarah again:
> 
> I think the main point to remember is that whatever
> rupa arises, there have to be the 4 great elements and
> the 4 derived rupas (visible object, odour, flavour
> and nutrition) as well. 
> 
> Now I'm quoting from KS's 'Survey of Paramatha
> Dhammas' from Zolag website http://www.zolag.co.uk/
> in Appendix 111: to Rupa:
> 
==============================================
===
> 
> 'The nine types of kammaja rúpas are derived rúpas,
> upådåya rúpas, which have to arise together with the
> eight inseparable rúpas, avinibbhoga rúpas. There are
> the following groups or kalåpas originated from kamma:
> 
> 1. the decad of the eyesense, cakkhudasaka  kalåpa,
> consisting of the eight inseparable rúpas, eyesense
> and life faculty.
> 2. the decad of earsense, sotadasaka kalåpa,
> consisting of the eight inseparable rúpas, earsense
> and life faculty.
> 3. the decad of smellingsense, ghånadasaka kalåpa,
> consisting of the eight inseparable rúpas,
> smellingsense and life faculty.
> 4. the decad of tastingsense, jivhådasaka kalåpa,
> consisting of the eight inseparable rúpas,
> tastingsense and life faculty. 
> 5. the decad of bodysense, kåyadasaka kalåpa,
> consisting of the eight inseparable rúpas, bodysense
> and life faculty. 
> 6. the decad of femininity, itthibhåvadasaka kalåpa,
> consisting of the eight inseparable rúpas, femininity
> and life faculty.
> 7. the decad of masculinity, purisabhåvadasaka kalåpa,
> consisting of the eight inseparable rúpas, masculinity
> and life faculty.
> 8. the decad of heart-base, hadayadasaka kalåpa,
> consisting of the eight inseparable rúpas, heart-base
> and life faculty.
> 9. the vital nonad, jívitanavaka  kalåpa, consisting
> of the eight inseparable rúpas and life faculty. 
> 
> Groups of rúpa originated from kamma arise at the
> arising moment, the upåda khaùa, of the
> rebirth-consciousness, paìisandhi- citta, in
> accordance with the plane of existence where one is
> born. Kamma produces rúpa at the three moments of each
> citta, namely, at the arising moment, uppåda khaùa,
> the moment of presence, tiììhi khaùa, and the moment
> of falling away, bhanga khaùa . Kamma ceases to
> produce rúpa shortly before death, that is to say,
> from the seventeenth moment of citta reckoned backward
> from the dying-consciousness. Thus, all kammajarúpa
> falls away together with the dying-consciousness,
> cuti-citta, at the end of a lifespan.
> For those who are born by way of the womb, in the
> human plane of existence, there are three kalåpas of
> kammajarúpa, groups of rúpa originated from kamma,
> arising together with the rebirth-consciousness. These
> three kalåpas are: the decad of heart-base, the decad
> of bodysense and the decad of sex. As the newborn
> being develops, the kalåpas which are the decads of
> the eyesense, the earsense, the smellingsense and the
> tastingsense arise at the appropriate time.' 
> 
==============================================
=======
> 
> This detail is  given in the Abhidammattha Sangaha.
> Just to clarify on which rupas exactly are produced by
> kamma (and to add some textual support!), I'm now
> quoting from the B.Bodhi's 'Abhidammattha
> Sangaha'V1,10 p.247:
> 
> " Eighteen kinds of material phenomena are produced by
> kamma; the five sensitivities; the two sex faculties;
> the life faculty; the heart-base-arise exclusively
> from kamma. The other nine kinds arise from kamma only
> when they occur in the kamma-born groups; otherwise
> they originate from the other causes".
> 
> Num, I hope this last sentence clarifies.
> 
> A little further on the AS discusses the 21 material
> groups produced by kamma, consciousness, temperature
> and nutriment, but I've given enough detail for one
> post!
> 
> Perhaps I can now correct my original brief summary to
> say that what we take for hair, skin colour,
> good-looking appearance and the rest are the
> kayadasaka kalapa (decad of bodysense) including the 8
> inseperable rupas which condition each other and the
> bodysense. The kalapa is conditioned by kamma.
> According to my recollection of what KS said, vanno
> (visible object, NOT cakkhupasada rupa!) is of
> significance here. 
> 
> As we know, conditions are very complicated. I think I
> have to leave it here to Kom (and Jack)!
> 
> Hope this helps a little.....
> 
> Sarah
> 

 
5209 From: Joyce Short   
Date: Fri May 11, 2001 10:28am
Subject: Re: Kusala etc.

 
  > ">Sorry, not a scholar, don't know Pali or Sanskrit.>" [joyce]
> 
>Des: But I "know" you. Dharma is universal.

Joyce:  How refreshingly simply put, Des! Truly, we know each other in the
knowing. Dharma is as universal as the sun and as open as the sky.

But, some beings prefer to communicate in preferred ways, not in ways
universal, simple or open.  So, there exists the paradox -how to speak the
Truth as one experiences and thus practice Right Speech (not lying)  if the
manner of one's speech annoys others and thus is not Right Speech, ie. the
cause of divisiveness?  (and the cause of arising of akusala in some)

"The way is not in the sky.
The way is in the heart.

All things pass away.
But the awakened awake forever.

You are the lamp
To lighten the way.
Then hurry, hurry.

When your light shines purely
You will not be born,
And you will not die.
    -Dhammapada-

Metta,

Joyce

 
5210 From: Leonardo Neves   
Date: Fri May 11, 2001 11:35am
Subject: Fw: [Triplegem] Palm Pilot User.

 
  Hi,

Amara and Robert in special ...

For all of you that like this kind of stuff. I'm loving reading Dhamma texts in this machines

Thank you Darren,
Mettaa,
Leonardo 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Darren Goh 
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 2:02 AM
Subject: [Triplegem] Palm Pilot User.


All, 

With the permission of John from Access to Insight, I converted most 
of the Sutta Pitaka into Palm Pilot format. You can read and study 
sutta on your Palm Pilot now. 

http://www.palicanonanywhere.org/

Please write me if you find any missing links or have any technical 
questions. I would be more than happy to help. 

Thank you, 
Darren






 
5211 From: Robert Kirkpatrick   
Date: Fri May 11, 2001 0:40pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Fw: [Triplegem] Palm Pilot User.

 
  Thanks leornardo and Darren,
You guys are way more advanced than me on computing. I'll wait
till the next generation of ebook readers comes out and invest
then
robert
--- Leonardo Neves  wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Amara and Robert in special ...
> 
> For all of you that like this kind of stuff. I'm loving
> reading Dhamma texts in this machines
> 
> Thank you Darren,
> Mettaa,
> Leonardo 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: Darren Goh 
> > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 2:02 AM
> Subject: [Triplegem] Palm Pilot User.
> 
> 
> All, 
> 
> With the permission of John from Access to Insight, I
> converted most 
> of the Sutta Pitaka into Palm Pilot format. You can read and
> study 
> sutta on your Palm Pilot now. 
> 
> http://www.palicanonanywhere.org/
> 
> Please write me if you find any missing links or have any
> technical 
> questions. I would be more than happy to help. 
> 
> Thank you, 
> Darren
> 


 
5212 From: Kom Tukovinit   
Date: Fri May 11, 2001 1:30pm
Subject: Re: pitaka gurudom

 
  Dear Joe,

Sorry for the late response.

--- Joe wrote:
>
> If you reference the Tipitaka on your own, you are then adding a 
> third interpretation to that of the two teachers I used as 
examples. 

Yes, but at the end, I believe it is your understanding that counts 
the most, and not others.  

> My point is exactly this: the Tipitaka means whatever you, or your 
> teacher, decides it means, and that is dependent on your 
> understanding of the language and concepts, not to mention previous 
> conditioning. As a set of texts, the Tipitaka cannot logically be 
> said to exist as a single, uniform truth but rather is a 
theoretical 
> compendium (to leap ahead to Jon's response, in which he says he's 
> not very good at theoretical constructs -- very humble given his 
> demonstrated mastery of them as demonstrated on this list!)

Yes, indeed, without experiencing the realities as they truly are, 
all one knows is theoretical.  My point is that, with all the 
possible different misunderstanding/micha-dithi, one is best to go by 
the most authoritative source for the theoretical understandings.  
After that, one can't do much more than that except experincing the 
realities on one's own.

> The same might be said of one's understanding of the Tipitaka, that 
> panna might be a precondition to understanding the texts. One is 
> making a wager when one accepts the texts to represent sacca-dhamma 
> before panna knows that they represent same.

I think here, Sarah and Roberts would say that theoretical 
understandings and actual discernments of realities can go hand in 
hand, and in fact, re-inforce one another for the development of both 
types of panna.

> 
> > If one understands the truth without being taught, then one
> > can become self-enlightened.  This is the accumulation of
> > sammasam-buddha and paccekha buddha only.  
> 
> Please explain how you know this is be true, other then because you 
> read it in a text. Otherwise you're caught in the same logical 
> loop that I'm trying to work out of. 

Here's one statement that is unprovable unless one is a samma-
sambuddha.  The drawback of disbelieving in it is that it could 
condition lobha toward believing that one may attain self-
enlightenment without the proper studying of realities or without 
guidance from the enlightened ones while the Buddha's sasana still 
exists.  This would be severe micha-dithi if the statement happens to 
be true.  Of course, there are drawbacks if the statement happens to 
be untrue.

> PS Are you a participant in the DSG in Bangkok (the 'real' one, not 
> the 'virtual' one <g>)?

I am located in California.  I have met Tan Ajarn Sujin only once.  I 
have never met any other people in this group (except maybe a few), 
although I have some inklings about what they look, are, sound, or 
taste (we have extensively discussed about brain-tasting..) like 
based on many stories that have been passed around.

kom

 
5213 From: Sarah Procter Abbott   
Date: Fri May 11, 2001 8:10pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] notes from Bkk

 
  Hi Num,


--- Num wrote: > Hi Sarah,
> 
> I really appreciate your mail. Thank you for always
> has a follow-up answer 
> and explanation.   I probably have to think about it
> more and more, but I 
> will try to respond and clarify something which is
> still not clear to me.

There's a lot for me to consider and clarify
too...sorry to everyone for delays. Just time for one
of your questions here because it's short:
> 
> <<<<
> 6. Rob & Num were asking about what is meant by
> 'contemplating the EXTERNAL mental objects'. This
> refers to awareness of thinking (one's 'own').
> Thinking can think about 'external objects' and take
> them for being something as wrong view has not been
> eradicated.
> >>>>
> 
>  So it does not mean anohet's another person's citta
> or thought and feeling.  
> It still means our own mental processes which think
> of external object??  
> What is the internal object?  I haven't looked up
> for a search for 
> Cheto-pariya-nanna, ability to know and read another
> person's mind.  I just 
> got my notebook back, so I can search it on my Thai
> Tipitaka CDrom.
> 
Right. Satipatthana ALWAYS concerns the awareness of
realities, so when we read about the 'six external
bases', I understand it to refer to awareness of
'one's own' thinking. The concepts being thought about
at that time concern 'outer' beings and objects, other
visible objects, sounds etc.

So the 'six internal objects' refer to awareness of
seeing, visible object and the rest as in:
"Here, O Bhikkhus, a bhikkhu understands the eye and
material forms and the fetter that arises dependent on
both...."

I would think that if there is the ability to know and
read the other's mind that again this is a special
kind of thinking and would again fall under extenal
objects for the purpose of awareness of thinking. But
the latter is guess work!> 
> 
I'll get back on Kom's reply to my other post to you
and to Erik, Paul, Howard after my busy weekend
teaching.

Must go,

Sarah

p.s look forward to more on phassa, vinnana,
manisakara etc later too! Looks like we can keep
pretty busy for this life!


 
5214 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Fri May 11, 2001 8:59pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Introduction and a question from a new person

 
  Paul

Welcome to the list from me.

>     I am a newcomer to this particular list, having
> recently stumbled across 
> it due to a comment someone made on another list.  A
> few years ago I read one 
> of Nina van Gorkom's books.  But it is only in the
> past couple of months that 
> an interest has begun in actually studying
> Abdhidamma. Lacking the education 
> to use the correct technical terms, I will have to
> phrase my question in 
> everyday language.

This of course is fine.  There is no requirement here
to use technical terms.  Those who are familiar with
the technical terms use them because it helps reduce
uncertainty.  But all approaches are welcome!

>     I have long been confused about the role of
> intention and effort given 
> the fact of selflessness.  I can appreciate the
> teaching that ther is no 
> "self" that can control one's progress on the path
> of truth.  Finding the 
> path, finding a teacher, recognizing the truth of
> the teachings, deepening 
> one's study, and adhering to the path all depend
> upon conditions and are not 
> in the direct control of a self that can "make" one
> do any of the above.
>     Still, it seems that effort and intention play a
> role in the process. The 
> Buddha set forth the noble truth of suffering and
> its cessation as the 
> gateway to the path.  Therefore one begins with an
> intention to end one's 
> suffering by pursuing the eightfold path. This is a
> desire, but unlike 
> ordinary desires, it begins to deconstruct itself as
> one glimpses the truth 
> that in fact there is no "self" that is suffering.
>     So, when I read the post below (# 5171) I was a
> little confused.  Perhaps 
> this is a semantic confusion, not a substantial one.
>  Hopefully someone can 
> clarify? The post says: "If we open a sutta about
> metta with the intention to 
> have metta, it shows the clinging to self again." 
> What is meant by this?

You have touched on one of the most difficult parts of
the dhamma to grasp.  I do not pretend to understand
it to any degree.  What follows is what I have read
and heard but only in some instances (ie. the akusala
bits) noted as being the case, for me at least.

I think the point being made here is that the mental
factors of intention and effort that support the
development of understanding of realities are not the
same as intention and effort in the conventional
sense.  They are mental factors that arise with (ie.
accompany) a wholesome moment of consciousness.  They
accompany the wholesome moment of understanding.  The
conditions for their arising include studying the
teachings and reflecting on them, with the right
purpose in mind.

What we identify as intention and effort on our part
is likely to include a goodly dose of attachment or
wrong view of one form or another (this is the part I
can vouch for).  This is a difficult notion to grasp,
I know, but then we are not used to being completely
honest with ourselves.

So intending to do anything that we expect will lead
to more kusala of whatever kind is likely to include a
lot of unwholesome moments that prevent kusala
actually arising, or simply serve to reinforce the
idea of self.  In other words, such intention is not
the condition for the development of kusala. 

None of this means that we should refrain from doing
anything just because we notice attachment or aversion
that was not previously apparent.  But we are better
placed to avoid the danger of mistaking the
unwholesome for wholesome.

I think this is in line with what you say below, which
I substantially agree with.

Hope you find our discussion useful, and I look
forward to hearing more from you.

Jon

>     If one starts with the desire to end suffering,
> as the Buddha suggests, 
> and realizes that the path includes the accumulation
> of wisom *and* merit, 
> including the cultivation of virtuous states of mind
> such as metta, then 
> wouldn't one engage in activities that seem to
> promote the arising of metta?  
> One could think that reading the sutta,
> contemplating it, etc. could provide 
> conditions favorable to the arising of metta?  Of
> course, one cannot *make* 
> metta arise by doing this.  Also it could (at times)
> be unskillful to turn to 
> sutta reading in order to avoid investigating an
> unpleasant state of mind 
> that is arising. 
>     Or to take another example--dana.  One engages
> in the physical act of 
> giving but becomes aware that a mental state of
> generosity may not be 
> arising, or may arise momentarily and be followed by
> second-thoughts, 
> regrets, etc.  One sees the selflessness of this
> process.  One cannot *make* 
> generosity arise.  Nevertheless, the act of giving
> is preferable to 
> non-giving. The intention, or wish, to cultivate
> generosity still seems to 
> have some place in the process of the path, does it
> not?
>     I would presume that the point is not to forego
> sutta reading, or acts of 
> generosity.  Do you feel sutta reading is a good
> activity if done with 
> correct understanding, not expecting it to be like
> putting a coin in a 
> machine and getting a candy in return?
> 
> Paul Bail


 
5215 From: Joyce Short   
Date: Fri May 11, 2001 9:10pm
Subject: noting "others" (?)

 
  >> <<<<
>> 6. Rob & Num were asking about what is meant by
>> 'contemplating the EXTERNAL mental objects'. This
>> refers to awareness of thinking (one's 'own').
>> Thinking can think about 'external objects' and take
>> them for being something as wrong view has not been
>> eradicated.
>> >>>>
>>
>>  So it does not mean anohet's another person's citta
>> or thought and feeling.
>> It still means our own mental processes which think
>> of external object??

Contemplation of the body, sensations, mind (mental states) and mental
objects (mental contents) are the Four Foundations within "this full fathom
long body."

"Contemplating the body IN the body...the sensations IN the sensations..etc.
What is to be practiced is pure, non-reactive mindfulness i.e. as clear and
full an awareness as possible (ardently and clearly comprehending) of
whatever is present NOW in the area selected for observation, without going
off into a  tangeant into other more or less relevent mental associations
(feelings, thoughts, value judgments, imaginings)  All noted in ones own
body-mind continuum only.

"Fare along contemplating the body in the body, but do not apply yourself to
a train of thought connected to the body; fare along contemplating the
sensations in the sensations....the mind in the mind...,metal objects in
mental objects, but do not apply yourself to the train of thought connected
with sensations...the mind...mental objects. -Dantabhumisutta (M.125)When

So  - all investigation is into one's own package of body-mind only.  This
is done ardently, not with a great deal of tension and effort, but
"ardently" in the full meaning of this word.  Think of really being close
enough with the other/object to close the gap and then be one/unity) Clearly
comprehendending - getting the practice really clear. See each arising
really clearly what ever it may be.  What is an "object?" What is mental
content?  And how does one note?  Here one notices keenly, sharply like an
arrow shot to its target. Noting the object AS it occurs.  Thus mind is not
going off into tangental thinking. ie.  noting rising of abdomen  (mental
associating ...."hmm, wonder if Im doing this right? Hmm, breath seems
shallow to day, wonder if Im sick"...and so on) What is happening to the
object one is noting? and so on. Is it staying around? Not?

So, constant awareness, moment to moment, whatever one is doing and with an
interested, alert, welcoming attitude.

Contemplation of "others mental processes" is actually, "imagining,
imagining". Thinking about external objects or internal objects is
"thinking, thinking" the focus of attention is attending here. The purpose
is to gain complete, immediate and direct awareness of all phenomena as they
arise. In this direct awareness the nature of both the phenomena and the
awareness can be seen by the "experiencer".

Thus you will see for yourself..."Only when you know for yourselves: "These
things are unwholesome and lead to harm and suffering...and these things are
wholesome... and lead to welfare and happiness, THEN you should abandoned
(the unwholeseome things) then you should practice and dwell upon the
wholesome things." (A.3.65)

Metta,

Joyce

 
5216 From: Joyce Short   
Date: Fri May 11, 2001 9:42pm
Subject: clinging to self as practice

 
  > 
> This of course is fine.  There is no requirement here
> to use technical terms.  Those who are familiar with
> the technical terms use them because it helps reduce
> uncertainty.

I thought it was insight into ultimate realities that "reduced" ('removed')
uncertainty.  Only ego can be insecure.  So - when one feels uncertainty -
isn't it just feeling, feeling untill this dissolves- along with the "one",
the knowing, of the object, feeling.  Could also be aversion, aversion one
is noting  -but this also goes, along with the knower.  (Not-two)

Study of technical terms needs only be minimal. Some concepts not well
expressed in English. But use of technical terms to reduce uncertainty?
have I missed that Sutta?

Metta,

Joyce






 But all approaches are welcome!
>
>>     I have long been confused about the role of
>> intention and effort given
>> the fact of selflessness.  I can appreciate the
>> teaching that ther is no
>> "self" that can control one's progress on the path
>> of truth.  Finding the
>> clarify? The post says: "If we open a sutta about
>> metta with the intention to
>> have metta, it shows the clinging to self again."
>> What is meant by this?

Self has the habit of mis-perception of reality.  There is the invention of
an object construct called "I" that grasps/reacts and become entangles with
other objects. "Yours/mine".  All of this is based on deeply rooted desiring
to become.  You can also say that awakening the desire to study the path to
enlightenment is clinging to self.  Everything we do initially is this...but
this is natural.  When one has the feeling that clinging or desire is
present, just know this.  Notice the motivation of the desire. Is practice
selfish? - enlightenment, kindness, happiness for me, kind of
self-cultivation or do we include all other sentient beings?  Or is this
desire to understand and to grow in insight coming itself from wisdom mind
and thus is not ego-centered. When selfishness may be present, one then
changes the aspiration.  After awhile, one may have started any practice
from selfish clinging, but the practice itself will take the mind beyond
this origination. Step by step we move from where we were, more and more
opening to other possibilties, and not moving an inch from enlightened mind
in this process..  Nothing is bad or wrong, we just attempt to be aware.
When the natural intelligence of mind sees deeply into itself, into certain
truths, it naturally lets go, no force needed.

So - it is useful to look at the nature of one's practice approach.  Does it
come from a notion that life/self is bad and that by doing certain practices
one will change things?  This is ego-striving practice out of aversion.
Ditto if you focus on some great enlightenment somewhere in the future -
this is greed and delusion. Most of intitial practice is difficult because
where ever one really is, its can be a bit uncomfortable, one doesn't like
it at all.

If the concepts and questions about "clinging to self" are the foremost in
consciousness  -then take this as your meditation focus or object of
contemplation.  Live with your question until at one point there will not be
"two".  There will be a point of coming together of the contemplator and
object of contemplation (perhaps while you are doing the dishes or cutting
the grass) Then the answer or insight into what you are asking will arise in
the manner which is illuminating for you.  And thus you see for yourself
what is wholesome and what is not.

metta,

Joyce

Metta,

Joyce

 
 
5217 From: Herman 
Date: Sat May 12, 2001 11:25am
Subject: Re: clinging to self as practice

 
  The monk, noting an aversion to technical terms, notes thus : 
Aversion to technical terms, aversion to technical terms.

The monk, noting a clinging to technical terms, notes thus : Clinging 
to technical terms , clinging to technical terms.

The monk, noting an ignorance of technical terms, notes thus : 
Ignorance of technical terms, ignorance of technical terms.

Thus the monk is freed from the fetter of technical terms.


With lovingkindness  (there is a huge smiley around this entire post)


Herman

--- "Joyce Short"  wrote:
> > 
> > This of course is fine.  There is no requirement here
> > to use technical terms.  Those who are familiar with
> > the technical terms use them because it helps reduce
> > uncertainty.
> 
> I thought it was insight into ultimate realities that "reduced" 
('removed')
> uncertainty.  Only ego can be insecure.  So - when one feels 
uncertainty -
> isn't it just feeling, feeling untill this dissolves- along with 
the "one",
> the knowing, of the object, feeling.  Could also be aversion, 
aversion one
> is noting  -but this also goes, along with the knower.  (Not-two)
> 
> Study of technical terms needs only be minimal. Some concepts not 
well
> expressed in English. But use of technical terms to reduce 
uncertainty?
> have I missed that Sutta?
> 
> Metta,
> 
> Joyce
>

 
5219 From: bruce   
Date: Sat May 12, 2001 4:36pm
Subject: some questions on practice: Re: Kusala etc; Re: noting "others" (?)

 
  robert wrote in reply to erik:

> If one
> doesn't know how to study the present moment yet this may seem
> hard to do . But it can be done. 

it does indeed seem hard.  how *does* one study the present moment?


> Mostly my meditation practice involves the investigation of the
> dhammas at the six doors. 

and how does one investigate the dhammas at the six doors?

how is any attempt at this investigation different from attempting to 
notice what is manifesting at the six doors?  in other words, how is 
the practice you describe, robert, different from the 
"even-a-child-can-do" practice joyce describes?

bruce
At 21:27 2001/05/11 -0700, you wrote:
> Dear Joyce,
> Even a child could be taught to focus attention in the way you
> suggest here. Is that what the Buddha meant by satipatthana? 
> I would suggest the development of satipatthana is  more
> profound than that.
> robert 
> 
> --- Joyce Short  wrote:
> > 
> > > What is to be practiced is pure, non-reactive mindfulness
> i.e.
> > as clear and
> > full an awareness as possible (ardently and clearly
> > comprehending) of
> > whatever is present NOW in the area selected for observation,
> > without going
> > off into a  tangeant into other more or less relevent mental
> > associations
> > (feelings, thoughts, value judgments, imaginings)  All noted
> > in ones own
> > body-mind continuum only.
> > 
> > > So  - all investigation is into one's own package of
> body-mind
> > only.  This
> > is done ardently, not with a great deal of tension and effort,
> > but
> > "ardently" in the full meaning of this word.  Think of really
> > being close
> > enough with the other/object to close the gap and then be
> > one/unity) Clearly
> > comprehendending - getting the practice really clear. See each
> > arising
> > really clearly what ever it may be.  What is an "object?" What
> > is mental
> > content?  And how does one note?  Here one notices keenly,
> > sharply like an
> > arrow shot to its target. Noting the object AS it occurs. 
> > Thus mind is not
> > going off into tangental thinking. ie.  noting rising of
> > abdomen  (mental
> > associating ...."hmm, wonder if Im doing this right? Hmm,
> > breath seems
> > shallow to day, wonder if Im sick"...and so on) What is
> > happening to the
> > object one is noting? and so on. Is it staying around? Not?
> > 
> > So, constant awareness, moment to moment, whatever one is
> > doing and with an
> > interested, alert, welcoming attitude.
> > 
> > Contemplation of "others mental processes" is actually,
> > "imagining,
> > imagining". Thinking about external objects or internal
> > objects is
> > "thinking, thinking" the focus of attention is attending here.
> > The purpose
> > is to gain complete, immediate and direct awareness of all
> > phenomena as they
> > arise. In this direct awareness the nature of both the
> > phenomena and the
> > awareness can be seen by the "experiencer".
> > > Joyce
> > 

 
5220 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Sat May 12, 2001 4:41pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: clinging to self as practice

 
  Herman
I was wondering how best to reply to Joyce's post, but
I think you've said it all!
JOn

--- Herman wrote: > The monk, noting
an aversion to technical terms,
> notes thus : 
> Aversion to technical terms, aversion to technical
> terms.
> 
> The monk, noting a clinging to technical terms,
> notes thus : Clinging 
> to technical terms , clinging to technical terms.
> 
> The monk, noting an ignorance of technical terms,
> notes thus : 
> Ignorance of technical terms, ignorance of technical
> terms.
> 
> Thus the monk is freed from the fetter of technical
> terms.
> 
> 
> With lovingkindness  (there is a huge smiley around
> this entire post)
> 
> 
> Herman
> 
> --- "Joyce Short"
>  wrote:
> > > 
> > > This of course is fine.  There is no requirement
> here
> > > to use technical terms.  Those who are familiar
> with
> > > the technical terms use them because it helps
> reduce
> > > uncertainty.
> > 
> > I thought it was insight into ultimate realities
> that "reduced" 
> ('removed')
> > uncertainty.  Only ego can be insecure.  So - when
> one feels 
> uncertainty -
> > isn't it just feeling, feeling untill this
> dissolves- along with 
> the "one",
> > the knowing, of the object, feeling.  Could also
> be aversion, 
> aversion one
> > is noting  -but this also goes, along with the
> knower.  (Not-two)
> > 
> > Study of technical terms needs only be minimal.
> Some concepts not 
> well
> > expressed in English. But use of technical terms
> to reduce 
> uncertainty?
> > have I missed that Sutta?
> > 
> > Metta,
> > 
> > Joyce



 
5221 From: Marlon McCall 
Date: Sat May 12, 2001 1:58pm
Subject: Welcome Back Amara

 
  Welcome Back Amara
 
Its so very nice to hear from you again Amara. This is a very special 
day for everyone in this group. It is so nice to see the welcome back 
messages en mass you received. Whether you remain in DSL or D-L 
really doesn't matter, the fact of the matter is you have returned in 
full. I now can leave these two groups with total peace of mind, as I 
only re-listed while awaiting your hopeful return, which you did. 
Thank you very much Amara and everyone here it has truly been a 
pleasure, and an honor associating with all of you.

With Utmost Respect Always
Marlon McCall

Ps. This is a copy of a message I posted to Dhamma-list as Amara has 
began to post there.

 
5222 From: Robert Kirkpatrick   
Date: Sat May 12, 2001 8:42pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Welcome Back Amara

 
  Dear marlon,
Why not stay? I think we're all used to your direct style and
can see your sincere nature. Even we have differences of opinion
it is good to discuss them. Rejoin anytime and you'll be most
welcome.
robert
--- Marlon McCall wrote:
> Welcome Back Amara
>  
> Its so very nice to hear from you again Amara. This is a very
> special 
> day for everyone in this group. It is so nice to see the
> welcome back 
> messages en mass you received. Whether you remain in DSL or
> D-L 
> really doesn't matter, the fact of the matter is you have
> returned in 
> full. I now can leave these two groups with total peace of
> mind, as I 
> only re-listed while awaiting your hopeful return, which you
> did. 
> Thank you very much Amara and everyone here it has truly been
> a 
> pleasure, and an honor associating with all of you.
> 
> With Utmost Respect Always
> Marlon McCall
> 
> Ps. This is a copy of a message I posted to Dhamma-list as
> Amara has 
> began to post there.



 
5223 From: Robert Kirkpatrick   
Date: Sat May 12, 2001 9:56pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] some questions on practice: Re: Kusala etc; Re: noting "others" (?)

 
  Good question Bruce.
--- bruce  wrote:
> robert wrote in reply to erik:
> 
> > If one
> > doesn't know how to study the present moment yet this may
> seem
> > hard to do . But it can be done. 
> 
> it does indeed seem hard.  how *does* one study the present
> moment?
_________________________

I don't think it is some technique that one learns like TM. 
My feeling is that gradually from learning about the Dhamma
there is more understanding that there is only insignificant,
evanescent namas and rupas. Then there is a very gradual
investigation into this matter.


> 
> 
> > Mostly my meditation practice involves the investigation of
> the
> > dhammas at the six doors. 
> 
> and how does one investigate the dhammas at the six doors?
> 
> how is any attempt at this investigation different from
> attempting to 
> notice what is manifesting at the six doors?  in other words,
> how is 
> the practice you describe, robert, different from the 
> "even-a-child-can-do" practice joyce describes?
________________________________________________
I think I mentioned on an earlier that satipatthana is the sole
province of the Buddhas. It must be profound as it leads out of
this beginingless round of birth and death.

In fact, I know that often when doing this 'investigation of the
dhammas at the 6 doors' that it is not actually satipatthana.
More often than not there is simply the experience of feeling or
hardness or colour or sound but without panna or sati. It is 
understanding that distinguishes the difference (between with
and without), and this understanding is supported by listening
and considering.
I think the goal is not so much to have many moments of
awareness but to develop insight into what is seen. There is a
difference.
In the Mahasatipatthana sutta the Buddha says  
"Gacchanto va gacchamiti pajanati = "When he is going (a
bhikkhu) understands: 'I am going.'" 
It perhaps sounds easy enough? Just keep attention focussed on
the body?
The commentary explains

"In this matter of going, readily do dogs, jackals and the like,
know when they move on that they are moving. But this
instruction on the modes of deportment was not given concerning
similar awareness, because awareness of that sort belonging to
animals does not shed the belief in a living being, does not
knock out the percept of a soul, and neither becomes a subject
of meditation nor the development of the Arousing of
Mindfulness."

So the awareness in satipatthana is something that is directly
opposed to the illusion of self that has been present for all
these aeons.
The commentary says
"Mindfulness is established for the yogi through careful
scrutiny. He thinks: There is the body, but there is no being,
no person, no woman, no man, no soul, nothing pertaining to a
soul, no "I", nothing that is mine, no one, and nothing
belonging to anyone ."

Much of what Joyce says is certainly correct. There has to be
direct scrutiny of dhammas. But we should be careful not to
oversimplify on this matter. 


I know some will read this and feel discouraged. they will
surely think "well what exactly is it I'm supposed to do". 
As I said it is difficult but not impossible BUT it is something
we have to learn about for ourself.
Dhamma is deep:
The majhima nikaya ii 72
 "you ought to be at a loss
vaccha, you ought to be bewildered. For vaccha this
Dhamma is deep, difficult to see, difficult to
understand, peaceful, excellent, beyond dialectic,
subtle, intelligible to the wise; but it's hard for
you who are under another view, another allegiance,
another objective, of a different observance, and
under a different teacher"
We should be very grateful to be able to learn the Dhamma and be
grateful to those wise monks who preserved it so carefully for
these millenia. I think we shouldn't neglect the deep teachings
that were taught just as much for us as for those at the time of
the Buddha.

The "Kindred Sayings"(III, 
     Khandha vagga, Middle Fifty, Ch V, par. 99, The Leash) 
     Just as, monks, a dog tied up by a leash to a strong stake
or pillar, keeps running 
     round and revolving round and round that stake or pillar,
even so, monks, the 
     untaught many folk... regard body as self, regard feeling,
perception, activities, 
     consciousness as self... they run and revolve round and
round from body to body, 
     from feeling to feeling, from perception to perception,
from activities to activities, 
     from consciousness to consciousness...they are not released
therefrom, they are not 
     released from rebirth, from old age and decay, from sorrow
and grief, from woe, 
     lamentation and despair... they are not released from
dukkha, I declare... "

 It then says that the ariyan disciple who does not take any
dhamma for self is released  from dukkha. 
You see often when "I" investigate the 6 doors there  is just
that: "I". Sati is taken for self or I think "I" made awareness
happen. But cetana (volition, intention) and awareness are  part
of sankharakkhandha, they are "not-self because
uncontrollable" Visuddhimagga xiv224. 
This doesn't mean fatalism or that nothing can be done but it
should remind us that the right conditions are needed for the
right results.

I repeat it is to our great advantage to learn more about the
Dhamma. The Atthasalini, (triplets p451)defines "ignorant
average man" as:
"owing to the absense of access to the Scriptures, and of the
higher attainment of the path and fruition.
For to whoever owing to the absense of learning by
heart and deduction therefrom regarding the
khandas(aggregates) elements(dhatus)
sense-organs(ayatanas) the causal mode, the
applications of mindfulness etc there is NO attainment
of that learning which represses opinionativeness, nor
any access, owing to the non-attainment of what should
be attained by conduct. Such a person, from the
absense of such access and such attainment should be
known as ignorant".

So surely, as Joyce said, investigate whatever appears now. But
I think don't neglect the teachings given to us by the Buddha;
they are the support for samma ditthi. 
robert




 
5224 From: Howard 
Date: Sat May 12, 2001 7:52pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] noting "others" (?)

 
  Hi, Robert -

In a message dated 5/12/01 12:29:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
robert writes:


> Dear Joyce,
> Even a child could be taught to focus attention in the way you
> suggest here. Is that what the Buddha meant by satipatthana? 
> I would suggest the development of satipatthana is  more
> profound than that.
> robert 
> 
==============================
       Actually, I don't understand what is lacking in Joyce's description. 
Observing carefully, with clear comprehension, non-reaction, and strong 
concentration and mindfulness whatever arises from moment to moment certainly 
seems to me to be what "insight meditation" is about, and, from my 
perspective it isn't an easy task even for intelligent adults. Please let me 
know what you think I am missing here. 

With metta and respect,
Howard


/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./            (From the Diamond Sutra)                    
            
                                         



 
5225 From: Robert Kirkpatrick   
Date: Sun May 13, 2001 0:54am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] noting "others" (?)

 
  --- Howard wrote:
> Hi, Robert -
> 
> =========
>        Actually, I don't understand what is lacking in Joyce's
> description. 
> Observing carefully, with clear comprehension, non-reaction,
> and strong 
> concentration and mindfulness whatever arises from moment to
> moment certainly 
> seems to me to be what "insight meditation" is about, and,
> from my 
> perspective it isn't an easy task even for intelligent adults.
> Please let me 
> know what you think I am missing here. 
> 
> With metta and respect,
> Howard

_________________
Dear Howard,
You put this very nicely, as always. It was not so much that
Joyce's post was wrong but that (in my opinion) it pared down
the path beyond what it can be reduced to. Quite rightly she
emphasised the importance of direct awareness of whatever
appears but I felt she underemphasised a crucial ingredient -
sammaditthi. 

What I see, personally, is that there can be concentration but
that there can still be subtle idea of permanence. 
If we simply focus attention on
body or feelings or whatever we may succeed but still have an
idea of being able to control. It is all happening very fast
-even if there are moments of genuine awareness  avijja is still
coming in and obscuring what is there.

Perhaps we think we already know the characteristic of feeling.
After all feeling arises with every citta. But do we experience
it with sati and panna?
Observe feeling now. Somewhere it is arising but is it
experienced with sati or lobha or moha or dosa? Or are we not
sure what type of citta experienced it? Even if we feel very
equanimous about the feelings that arise it is not necessarily
the type of citta associated with satipatthana. 

Certainly we should explore feelings and citta and all dhammas
arising at the 6 doors but let us not underestimate this
process.
Avijja is so often the majician that fools us. It can make what
is not sati look like sati. 
robert




 
5226 From: Erik 
Date: Sun May 13, 2001 3:57am
Subject: Re: Hello everybody, I am new here

 
  --- Sarah Procter Abbott  
wrote:
> Dear Ai Lin,
> 
> Warmest regards and welcome to dsg. Eric has been
> challenging us all with his debates and has become a
> key participant here recently! If you start calling
> him Sam, we'll now understand, thank you!! <Eric, the
> twins in 'Lord of the Flies' are called Sam 'n Eric,
> is this the connection??>

Sure, Sarah, you know I'm out of town and you can talk behind my back 
cuz I can't defend myself! Ha! Re: Sam 'n Eric ref, that has occurred 
to me more than once. I loved that book as a kid.

Just, a few minutes ago, get back from seeing His Holiness the Dalai 
Lama, here in Salt Lake City. Wow. The teachings were on the Four 
Noble Truths and the Paramitas, with a heavy dose of anatta and 
paticca samuppada. Please understand just how big a head-trip this 
has been for me to hear the profound and sublime teaching on ten-drel 
(Paticca Sammupada) elaborated here in the land of Mormons. I never, 
ever believed I'd see the day. I never ever believed I'd live to see 
the day my own mom, a strict Mormon herself, would purchase tickets 
to see His Holiness. Even the President of the Mormon church met with 
the Dalai Lama and called him his "brother." This is PROOF miracles 
are possible. 

As I was perusing the Visuddhimagga on the plane, I saw once again 
the teaching that throughout our limitless rebirths that there are 
few beings who have not been our mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, 
and given it's Mother's Day tommorrow, this meditation couldn't have 
come at a better time. What a weekend!

Today's session began with the Dalai Lama praising the Wisdom of the 
Theras as the foundation of all Buddhadhamma, and began the teaching 
by requesting the contigent of Theravada monks sharing the stage with 
him to recite verses for everyone present. To hear the chants of both 
traditions echoing beside one another and the whole thing nearly 
overwhelmed me with gratitude, love, and tears. And of course hearing 
that from someone I consider one of my two lamas merely encourages my 
further studies in the Theravada Abhidhamma to lay the complete 
foundation for everything else. Just thought I'd write in while it's 
all still so fresh and share this wonderful stuff with all here in 
dsg.

May all beings have happiness and cause of happiness
May all beings be free from suffering and cause of suffering
May all beings neverr be separated from perfect happiness
May all beings abide in perfect equanimity, free from the poijnsons 
of greed, hatred, and delusion

 
5227 From: Robert Kirkpatrick   
Date: Sun May 13, 2001 8:32am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello everybody, I am new here

 
  Dear Erik,
This is really nice news. It sounds like the Dalai Lama might
have preceeded you in investigating the Theravada. He is very
understanding and evenhanded to say this.
I guess any qualms you might have had about studying within 2
traditions are gone, although I have a feeling that you- an
uncommon man- had very few anyway.
robert
--- Erik wrote:
> --- Sarah Procter Abbott
>  
> wrote:
> > Dear Ai Lin,
> > 
> > Warmest regards and welcome to dsg. Eric has been
> > challenging us all with his debates and has become a
> > key participant here recently! If you start calling
> > him Sam, we'll now understand, thank you!! <Eric, the
> > twins in 'Lord of the Flies' are called Sam 'n Eric,
> > is this the connection??>
> 
> Sure, Sarah, you know I'm out of town and you can talk behind
> my back 
> cuz I can't defend myself! Ha! Re: Sam 'n Eric ref, that has
> occurred 
> to me more than once. I loved that book as a kid.
> 
> Just, a few minutes ago, get back from seeing His Holiness the
> Dalai 
> Lama, here in Salt Lake City. Wow. The teachings were on the
> Four 
> Noble Truths and the Paramitas, with a heavy dose of anatta
> and 
> paticca samuppada. Please understand just how big a head-trip
> this 
> has been for me to hear the profound and sublime teaching on
> ten-drel 
> (Paticca Sammupada) elaborated here in the land of Mormons. I
> never, 
> ever believed I'd see the day. I never ever believed I'd live
> to see 
> the day my own mom, a strict Mormon herself, would purchase
> tickets 
> to see His Holiness. Even the President of the Mormon church
> met with 
> the Dalai Lama and called him his "brother." This is PROOF
> miracles 
> are possible. 
> 
> As I was perusing the Visuddhimagga on the plane, I saw once
> again 
> the teaching that throughout our limitless rebirths that there
> are 
> few beings who have not been our mothers, fathers, brothers,
> sisters, 
> and given it's Mother's Day tommorrow, this meditation
> couldn't have 
> come at a better time. What a weekend!
> 
> Today's session began with the Dalai Lama praising the Wisdom
> of the 
> Theras as the foundation of all Buddhadhamma, and began the
> teaching 
> by requesting the contigent of Theravada monks sharing the
> stage with 
> him to recite verses for everyone present. To hear the chants
> of both 
> traditions echoing beside one another and the whole thing
> nearly 
> overwhelmed me with gratitude, love, and tears. And of course
> hearing 
> that from someone I consider one of my two lamas merely
> encourages my 
> further studies in the Theravada Abhidhamma to lay the
> complete 
> foundation for everything else. Just thought I'd write in
> while it's 
> all still so fresh and share this wonderful stuff with all
> here in 
> dsg.
> 
> May all beings have happiness and cause of happiness
> May all beings be free from suffering and cause of suffering
> May all beings neverr be separated from perfect happiness
> May all beings abide in perfect equanimity, free from the
> poijnsons 
> of greed, hatred, and delusion
> 



 
5228 From: bruce   
Date: Sun May 13, 2001 10:46am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] some questions on practice: Re: Kusala etc; Re: noting "others" (?)

 
  thanks for your reply robert.  i am still not sure how one actually is to
go about studying dhammas arising at the six dvara, so perhaps another
question, open to all of course:

how does one know whether awareness of what is being noticed arises with
panna or sati, or without?

bruce





At 06:56 2001/05/12 -0700, you wrote:
> Good question Bruce.
> --- bruce  wrote:
> > robert wrote in reply to erik:
> > 
> > > If one
> > > doesn't know how to study the present moment yet this may
> > seem
> > > hard to do . But it can be done. 
> > 
> > it does indeed seem hard.  how *does* one study the present
> > moment?
> _________________________
> 
> I don't think it is some technique that one learns like TM. 
> My feeling is that gradually from learning about the Dhamma
> there is more understanding that there is only insignificant,
> evanescent namas and rupas. Then there is a very gradual
> investigation into this matter.
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > > Mostly my meditation practice involves the investigation of
> > the
> > > dhammas at the six doors. 
> > 
> > and how does one investigate the dhammas at the six doors?
> > 
> > how is any attempt at this investigation different from
> > attempting to 
> > notice what is manifesting at the six doors?  in other words,
> > how is 
> > the practice you describe, robert, different from the 
> > "even-a-child-can-do" practice joyce describes?
> ________________________________________________
> I think I mentioned on an earlier that satipatthana is the sole
> province of the Buddhas. It must be profound as it leads out of
> this beginingless round of birth and death.
> 
> In fact, I know that often when doing this 'investigation of the
> dhammas at the 6 doors' that it is not actually satipatthana.
> More often than not there is simply the experience of feeling or
> hardness or colour or sound but without panna or sati. It is 
> understanding that distinguishes the difference (between with
> and without), and this understanding is supported by listening
> and considering.
> I think the goal is not so much to have many moments of
> awareness but to develop insight into what is seen. There is a
> difference.
> In the Mahasatipatthana sutta the Buddha says  
> "Gacchanto va gacchamiti pajanati = "When he is going (a
> bhikkhu) understands: 'I am going.'" 
> It perhaps sounds easy enough? Just keep attention focussed on
> the body?
> The commentary explains
> 
> "In this matter of going, readily do dogs, jackals and the like,
> know when they move on that they are moving. But this
> instruction on the modes of deportment was not given concerning
> similar awareness, because awareness of that sort belonging to
> animals does not shed the belief in a living being, does not
> knock out the percept of a soul, and neither becomes a subject
> of meditation nor the development of the Arousing of
> Mindfulness."
> 
> So the awareness in satipatthana is something that is directly
> opposed to the illusion of self that has been present for all
> these aeons.
> The commentary says
> "Mindfulness is established for the yogi through careful
> scrutiny. He thinks: There is the body, but there is no being,
> no person, no woman, no man, no soul, nothing pertaining to a
> soul, no "I", nothing that is mine, no one, and nothing
> belonging to anyone ."
> 
> Much of what Joyce says is certainly correct. There has to be
> direct scrutiny of dhammas. But we should be careful not to
> oversimplify on this matter. 
> 
> 
> I know some will read this and feel discouraged. they will
> surely think "well what exactly is it I'm supposed to do". 
> As I said it is difficult but not impossible BUT it is something
> we have to learn about for ourself.
> Dhamma is deep:
> The majhima nikaya ii 72
>  "you ought to be at a loss
> vaccha, you ought to be bewildered. For vaccha this
> Dhamma is deep, difficult to see, difficult to
> understand, peaceful, excellent, beyond dialectic,
> subtle, intelligible to the wise; but it's hard for
> you who are under another view, another allegiance,
> another objective, of a different observance, and
> under a different teacher"
> We should be very grateful to be able to learn the Dhamma and be
> grateful to those wise monks who preserved it so carefully for
> these millenia. I think we shouldn't neglect the deep teachings
> that were taught just as much for us as for those at the time of
> the Buddha.
> 
> The "Kindred Sayings"(III, 
>      Khandha vagga, Middle Fifty, Ch V, par. 99, The Leash) 
>      Just as, monks, a dog tied up by a leash to a strong stake
> or pillar, keeps running 
>      round and revolving round and round that stake or pillar,
> even so, monks, the 
>      untaught many folk... regard body as self, regard feeling,
> perception, activities, 
>      consciousness as self... they run and revolve round and
> round from body to body, 
>      from feeling to feeling, from perception to perception,
> from activities to activities, 
>      from consciousness to consciousness...they are not released
> therefrom, they are not 
>      released from rebirth, from old age and decay, from sorrow
> and grief, from woe, 
>      lamentation and despair... they are not released from
> dukkha, I declare... "
> 
>  It then says that the ariyan disciple who does not take any
> dhamma for self is released  from dukkha. 
> You see often when "I" investigate the 6 doors there  is just
> that: "I". Sati is taken for self or I think "I" made awareness
> happen. But cetana (volition, intention) and awareness are  part
> of sankharakkhandha, they are "not-self because
> uncontrollable" Visuddhimagga xiv224. 
> This doesn't mean fatalism or that nothing can be done but it
> should remind us that the right conditions are needed for the
> right results.
> 
> I repeat it is to our great advantage to learn more about the
> Dhamma. The Atthasalini, (triplets p451)defines "ignorant
> average man" as:
> "owing to the absense of access to the Scriptures, and of the
> higher attainment of the path and fruition.
> For to whoever owing to the absense of learning by
> heart and deduction therefrom regarding the
> khandas(aggregates) elements(dhatus)
> sense-organs(ayatanas) the causal mode, the
> applications of mindfulness etc there is NO attainment
> of that learning which represses opinionativeness, nor
> any access, owing to the non-attainment of what should
> be attained by conduct. Such a person, from the
> absense of such access and such attainment should be
> known as ignorant".
> 
> So surely, as Joyce said, investigate whatever appears now. But
> I think don't neglect the teachings given to us by the Buddha;
> they are the support for samma ditthi. 
> robert
> 

 
5229 From: Robert Kirkpatrick   
Date: Sun May 13, 2001 10:53am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] some questions on practice: Re: Kusala etc; Re: noting "others" (?)

 
  Bruce,
this is the million dollar question. I'll leave it to other
wiser members for now and maybe have a comment or two later.
robert
--- bruce  wrote:
> thanks for your reply robert.  i am still not sure how one
> actually is to
> go about studying dhammas arising at the six dvara, so perhaps
> another
> question, open to all of course:
> 
> how does one know whether awareness of what is being noticed
> arises with
> panna or sati, or without?
> 
> bruce



 
5230 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Sun May 13, 2001 3:40pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Gihi Sutta (was 'uprooting your kilesa?')

 
  Antony

--- Antony wrote: 

> There is a saying I have come to like, it is this:
> That suttas are 
> not for reading, they are for practicing with. The
> Buddha taught what 
> should be implemented. Suttas are not novels.  They
> are great stories 
> but that is a limited understanding and almost a
> waste.

Yes, they are certainly more than just that.  Thinking
back to the original occasion, they were what the
listener(s) on that occasion needed to hear.  They
were not always, however, about the practice directly,
although they were always connected with the
development of kusala and release from samsara.

The Gihi Sutta is an interesting example.  It seems to
be descriptive of the layperson who has attained the
first stage of enlightenment.  Only the stream-winner
(or above) observes the 5 precepts to perfection and
has perfected confidence/faith in the teachings.  We
are told that Anathapindika was a stream-winner
himself, having become that on his first meeting with
the Buddha.  So I would guess the purpose of the sutta
was to declare for the benefit of the other 500
laypeople, and for posterity, that the attainment to
stream-entry by a layperson was every bit equal to the
same attainment by a monk, since we know that this
sort of question was and remains an issue for some.

I look forward to any comments of your own on the
sutta.

Jon



 
5231 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Sun May 13, 2001 3:49pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Hello everybody, I am new here

 
  AiLin

Welcome to the list.  Glad to have you with us.

--- Ai Lin Edwards  wrote:
> Hello everybody,
> 
> I am AiLin here, Eric (I know him as Sam A. Vacca at
> other forums)directed 
> me here. Thanks Eric, I eventually get through to
> this site.

It was nice of Erik to refer you here.  I think his
other name suits well (but there was a contrary view
here at one stage!).

> I am a Chinese Buddhist, practising Vipassana for
> about ten years now. I am 
> from Malaysia and get my first taste of vipassana
> under Rev. Sujiva (late 
> Mahasi Sayadaw's lineage). I do my self-study on
> buddha dhamma whenever I 
> can. I reside in Australia right now and a regular
> at both Roshi Hogen's and 
> Edepot Buddhist Discussion Forum.
> 
> I like what I see here, and will visit very often
> from now on.
> 
> I have not much to offer right now, but find useful
> information here and 
> much to chew on. I'll try to read back all previous
> posts and hopefully get 
> some answers to my questions in my mind. I'll raise
> further questions to old 
> discussion topic if you people don't mind.
>
> My warmest regards to everybody here.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> AiLin

I look forward to hearing more from you.

Jon


 
5232 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Sun May 13, 2001 4:47pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] How 'right' is our intention? (was, Introduction and a question from a new person)

 
  Howard

In a message to Sarah and Paul you said:

>        I agree with you, Paul. I found myself
> perplexed with regard to 
> several points of Khun Sujin's reported by you,
> Sarah. It seems to me that 
> what KS is talking against, and you, Paul, are
> talking in favor of, would 
> usually be considered as a simple instance of right
> intention. KS *seems* to 
> me to be following a bit of a fatalistic,
> volition-is-useless tack. Perhaps I 
> miss-read her.

This is perhaps the same point that has been the
source of some discouragement among one or two of the
members on this list.  It is indeed a difficult one to
get a handle on.  I am reminded that many
non-Buddhists seem to regard the dhamma as fatalistic
when they first hear it (just an observation, no
comparison intended here, Howard).

To say that our intentions are likely to involve
impure motives (eg. expectations and anticipation) or
to be premised on an unrealistic sense of our own
level of understanding is not to suggest that the
activity in question should not be pursued.  It should
I think be taken as a welcome reminder of our
undoubted shortcomings.  We all have the tendency to
regard a genuine interest in the dhamma as meaning
that the accumulated akusala/latent tendencies that
had previously driven our lives should cease to be the
problem they were.  Yet if we think about it for a
minute, this is unlikely to be the case. Even in a
'wholesome situation' there are bound to be the same
old unwholesome tendencies manifesting, perhaps in a
more subtle or devious form but finding an opportunity
nonetheless.  Moments of true kusala remain relatively
speaking few and far between (my own experience,
anyway).

Mistaking akusala for kusala would surely be fatal to
the development of understanding or any form of kusala
for that matter.  Could we say that a healthy
scepticism about the quality of our mind-states is a
useful attitude to have?

Jon

> 
> In a message dated 5/10/01 7:52:24 AM Eastern
> Daylight Time, 
> Paul Bail writes:
> 
> 
> > Hello dear list members,
> > 
> >     By way of introduction I am a 54 year old
> male, living on the East 
> > Coast 
> > of the United States, interested in Buddhdharma.
> In the past year I ahve 
> > become aware of some of the resources on the
> Internet, including the 
> > wonderful world of lists.
> >     I am a newcomer to this particular list,
> having recently stumbled 
> > across 
> > it due to a comment someone made on another list. 
> A few years ago I read 
> > one 
> > of Nina van Gorkom's books.  But it is only in the
> past couple of months 
> > that 
> > an interest has begun in actually studying
> Abdhidamma. Lacking the 
> > education 
> > to use the correct technical terms, I will have to
> phrase my question in 
> > everyday language.
> >     I have long been confused about the role of
> intention and effort given 
> > the fact of selflessness.  I can appreciate the
> teaching that ther is no 
> > "self" that can control one's progress on the path
> of truth.  Finding the 
> > path, finding a teacher, recognizing the truth of
> the teachings, deepening 
> > one's study, and adhering to the path all depend
> upon conditions and are 
> > not 
> > in the direct control of a self that can "make"
> one do any of the above.
> >     Still, it seems that effort and intention play
> a role in the process. 
> > The 
> > Buddha set forth the noble truth of suffering and
> its cessation as the 
> > gateway to the path.  Therefore one begins with an
> intention to end one's 
> > suffering by pursuing the eightfold path. This is
> a desire, but unlike 
> > ordinary desires, it begins to deconstruct itself
> as one glimpses the truth 
> > that in fact there is no "self" that is suffering.
> >     So, when I read the post below (# 5171) I was
> a little confused.  
> > Perhaps 
> > this is a semantic confusion, not a substantial
> one.  Hopefully someone can 
> > clarify? The post says: "If we open a sutta about
> metta with the intention 
> > to 
> > have metta, it shows the clinging to self again." 
> What is meant by this?
> >     If one starts with the desire to end
> suffering, as the Buddha suggests, 
> > and realizes that the path includes the
> accumulation of wisom *and* merit, 
> > including the cultivation of virtuous states of
> mind such as metta, then 
> > wouldn't one engage in activities that seem to
> promote the arising of 
> > metta?  
> > One could think that reading the sutta,
> contemplating it, etc. could 
> > provide 
> > conditions favorable to the arising of metta?  Of
> course, one cannot *make* 
> > metta arise by doing this.  Also it could (at
> times) be unskillful to turn 
> > to 
> > sutta reading in order to avoid investigating an
> unpleasant state of mind 
> > that is arising. 
> >     Or to take another example--dana.  One engages
> in the physical act of 
> > giving but becomes aware that a mental state of
> generosity may not be 
> > arising, or may arise momentarily and be followed
> by second-thoughts, 
> > regrets, etc.  One sees the selflessness of this
> process.  One cannot 
> > *make* 
> > generosity arise.  Nevertheless, the act of giving
> is preferable to 
> > non-giving. The intention, or wish, to cultivate
> generosity still seems to 
> > have some place in the process of the path, does
> it not?
> >     I would presume that the point is not to
> forego sutta reading, or acts 
> > of 
> > generosity.  Do you feel sutta reading is a good
> activity if done with 
> > correct understanding, not expecting it to be like
> putting a coin in a 
> > machine and getting a candy in return?
> > 
> > Paul Bail
> >     
> > ----------------
> > Sarah wrote:
> > > now if we understand the difference between
> kusala and
> > > akusala. It is important to know the intention.
> If we
> > > open a sutta about metta with the intention to
> have
> > > metta, it shows the clinging to self again. the
> > > understanding is always the key, so there can be
> > > understanding of metta when it arises naturally
> by
> > > conditions. This is the way that samtha is
> developed,
> > > not by wishing to develop it or by selecting an
> object
> > > like breath for development. There was also a 
> lot
> > > more discussion about breath as object of
> samatha.
> > 
> > 


 
5233 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Sun May 13, 2001 5:02pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] clinging to self as practice

 
  --- Joyce Short  wrote: > > 
> > This of course is fine.  There is no requirement
> here
> > to use technical terms.  Those who are familiar
> with
> > the technical terms use them because it helps
> reduce
> > uncertainty.
> 
> I thought it was insight into ultimate realities
> that "reduced" ('removed')
> uncertainty.

Joyce
You are no doubt correct.  However, I was referring to
uncertainty of expression, not uncertainty about the
nature of realities (although plenty of this too, of
course).
Jon


  Only ego can be insecure.  So - when
> one feels uncertainty -
> isn't it just feeling, feeling untill this
> dissolves- along with the "one",
> the knowing, of the object, feeling.  Could also be
> aversion, aversion one
> is noting  -but this also goes, along with the
> knower.  (Not-two)
> 
> Study of technical terms needs only be minimal. Some
> concepts not well
> expressed in English. But use of technical terms to
> reduce uncertainty?
> have I missed that Sutta?
> 
> Metta,
> 
> Joyce
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  But all approaches are welcome!
> >
> >>     I have long been confused about the role of
> >> intention and effort given
> >> the fact of selflessness.  I can appreciate the
> >> teaching that ther is no
> >> "self" that can control one's progress on the
> path
> >> of truth.  Finding the
> >> clarify? The post says: "If we open a sutta about
> >> metta with the intention to
> >> have metta, it shows the clinging to self again."
> >> What is meant by this?
> 
> Self has the habit of mis-perception of reality. 
> There is the invention of
> an object construct called "I" that grasps/reacts
> and become entangles with
> other objects. "Yours/mine".  All of this is based
> on deeply rooted desiring
> to become.  You can also say that awakening the
> desire to study the path to
> enlightenment is clinging to self.  Everything we do
> initially is this...but
> this is natural.  When one has the feeling that
> clinging or desire is
> present, just know this.  Notice the motivation of
> the desire. Is practice
> selfish? - enlightenment, kindness, happiness for
> me, kind of
> self-cultivation or do we include all other sentient
> beings?  Or is this
> desire to understand and to grow in insight coming
> itself from wisdom mind
> and thus is not ego-centered. When selfishness may
> be present, one then
> changes the aspiration.  After awhile, one may have
> started any practice
> from selfish clinging, but the practice itself will
> take the mind beyond
> this origination. Step by step we move from where we
> were, more and more
> opening to other possibilties, and not moving an
> inch from enlightened mind
> in this process..  Nothing is bad or wrong, we just
> attempt to be aware.
> When the natural intelligence of mind sees deeply
> into itself, into certain
> truths, it naturally lets go, no force needed.
> 
> So - it is useful to look at the nature of one's
> practice approach.  Does it
> come from a notion that life/self is bad and that by
> doing certain practices
> one will change things?  This is ego-striving
> practice out of aversion.
> Ditto if you focus on some great enlightenment
> somewhere in the future -
> this is greed and delusion. Most of intitial
> practice is difficult because
> where ever one really is, its can be a bit
> uncomfortable, one doesn't like
> it at all.
> 
> If the concepts and questions about "clinging to
> self" are the foremost in
> consciousness  -then take this as your meditation
> focus or object of
> contemplation.  Live with your question until at one
> point there will not be
> "two".  There will be a point of coming together of
> the contemplator and
> object of contemplation (perhaps while you are doing
> the dishes or cutting
> the grass) Then the answer or insight into what you
> are asking will arise in
> the manner which is illuminating for you.  And thus
> you see for yourself
> what is wholesome and what is not.
> 
> metta,
> 
> Joyce
> 
> Metta,
> 
> Joyce
> 



 
5234 From: bruce   
Date: Sun May 13, 2001 5:13pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] How 'right' is our intention? (was, Introduction and a question from a new person)

 
  hi jon

At 16:47 2001/05/13 +0800, you wrote:


> Mistaking akusala for kusala would surely be fatal to
> the development of understanding or any form of kusala
> for that matter.  

of course! but how are we to differentiate kusala cetana from akusala? 

bruce

 
5235 From: Sarah Procter Abbott   
Date: Sun May 13, 2001 7:48pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Introduction and a question from a new person

 
  Dear Paul, Howard, Bruce & Joyce, 

This may be a little long, but I'll keep this one
pretty free of Pali and references. I hope I am not
just repeating what others have said more succinctly
and wisely!

Paul wrote:
>I can appreciate the
> teaching that there is no 
> > "self" that can control one's progress on the path
> of truth.  Finding the 
> > path, finding a teacher, recognizing the truth of
> the teachings, deepening 
> > one's study, and adhering to the path all depend
> upon conditions and are 
> > not 
> > in the direct control of a self that can "make"
> one do any of the above.

This is exactly right as I see it too!

> >     Still, it seems that effort and intention play
> a role in the process. 
> > The 
> > Buddha set forth the noble truth of suffering and
> its cessation as the 
> > gateway to the path.  Therefore one begins with an
> intention to end one's 
> > suffering by pursuing the eightfold path. This is
> a desire, but unlike 
> > ordinary desires, it begins to deconstruct itself
> as one glimpses the truth 
> > that in fact there is no "self" that is suffering.

Effort and intention do play their roles. Intention
arises at every moment and effort at most times. These
are also 'not-self' and arise according to conditions,
their particular nature at any given moment being
influenced by all the different factors at that time.

It seems to me that we hear and accept there is no
self and yet whenever there is the idea of attending
to a particular reality, observing carefully,
selecting an object, not reacting, or being aware at
every moment, that the idea of self is there again.
Focusing or strongly concentrating on an object is not
the same as being aware of what has arisen already by
conditions at this very moment. 

It is not the desire or intention to follow the
eightfold path that begins to lead to an end of
suffering, but the understanding of a reality, say
seeing or hearing or hardness now as a mental or
physical phenomena, not self.

> >     If one starts with the desire to end
> suffering, as the Buddha suggests, 
> > and realizes that the path includes the
> accumulation of wisom *and* merit, 
> > including the cultivation of virtuous states of
> mind such as metta, then 
> > wouldn't one engage in activities that seem to
> promote the arising of 
> > metta?  
> > One could think that reading the sutta,
> contemplating it, etc. could 
> > provide 
> > conditions favorable to the arising of metta?  Of
> course, one cannot *make* 
> > metta arise by doing this.  Also it could (at
> times) be unskillful to turn 
> > to 
> > sutta reading in order to avoid investigating an
> unpleasant state of mind 
> > that is arising. 

As you started off by saying, all these activities
depend on conditions and are not 'in the direct
control of a self'. There are always many skilful and
unskilful moments. The point being made was that lobha
and clinging to self are there when we wish to have
more metta or would like to end suffering. If there is
more understanding of the value of metta, there wil be
conditions to read, hear, consider more about it and
best of all to show friendliness and kindness whenever
one has an opportunity anyway. So it is the
understanding of the value, by knowing its wholesome
nature when it arises, not the wish to have metta,
which will condition metta to arise more often.

> >     Or to take another example--dana.  One engages
> in the physical act of 
> > giving but becomes aware that a mental state of
> generosity may not be 
> > arising, or may arise momentarily and be followed
> by second-thoughts, 
> > regrets, etc.  One sees the selflessness of this
> process.  One cannot 
> > *make* 
> > generosity arise. 

These are astute observations and like Rob and the
others, I appreciate your careful consideration of the
dhamma.

> Nevertheless, the act of giving
> is preferable to 
> > non-giving. The intention, or wish, to cultivate
> generosity still seems to 
> > have some place in the process of the path, does
> it not?

Exactly. The point is that there is some understanding
about the value of generosity and knowledge that even
though there are different mental states involved,
there are moments of giving to the other which should
be encouraged.

> >     I would presume that the point is not to
> forego sutta reading, or acts 
> > of 
> > generosity.  

Exactly so! the point is to understand the value of
wholesome states (however few and far between!) and to
know these and all other realities are not self, not
worthy of being clung to.

Do you feel sutta reading is a good
> activity if done with 
> > correct understanding, not expecting it to be like
> putting a coin in a 
> > machine and getting a candy in return?

Of course. Reading, hearing, considering and
developing  intellectual right understanding are
essential. Most useful of all is understanding the
reality now, whether reading a sutta, shopping or
playing tennis.


> > Sarah wrote:

> If we
> > > open a sutta about metta with the intention to
> have
> > > metta, it shows the clinging to self again. the
> > > understanding is always the key, so there can be
> > > understanding of metta when it arises naturally
> by
> > > conditions. This is the way that samtha is
> developed,
> > > not by wishing to develop it or by selecting an
> object
 
> =================================
Howard: 

>        I agree with you, Paul. I found myself
> perplexed with regard to 
> several points of Khun Sujin's reported by you,
> Sarah. It seems to me that 
> what KS is talking against, and you, Paul, are
> talking in favor of, would 
> usually be considered as a simple instance of right
> intention. KS *seems* to 
> me to be following a bit of a fatalistic,
> volition-is-useless tack. Perhaps I 
> miss-read her.
> 

Firstly, let me make it quite clear that I'm writing
according to 'my' understanding of dhamma. I am not
quoting Khun Sujin unless indicated.

The more understanding develops the more it begins to
know more and more subtle clinging and wrong view. So
what is obvious now as when Paul says 'I can
appreciate the teaching that there is no 'self' that
can control one's progress on the path of truth' was
not obvious when we first heard the Buddha's
teachings. 
 
Is it fatalistic and can generosity and metta be
developed? My experience is that the more is known and
understood about these different realities and about
the difference between say, attachment and metta or
about what generosity really is, the more conditions
there will be for these qualities to be developed.

If we just plan to be more generous but know nothing
about different mental states or about good and bad,
how can it develop? If we just wish to be a kind
person and read a sutta over and over again without
understanding the special quality of metta when there
is a chance to show kindness, will it grow?

Understanding realities as they are, as not-self, is
not fatalistic but realistic. However, if we cling to
the idea that a self can act or do something or have
more good intentions at will, it will seem this way
for sure!

When there is a moment of understanding, there is no
doubt or idea of fatalism at that moment. It can
develop and it does develop if there has been the
right considering. Personally I find it really
inspiring and encouraging and a condition to read,
consider and develop a little more metta and dana,
rather than the reverse.

As we all know, these points are not easy. I don't
wish to suggest I have all or many of the answers but
I'm just trying to share a little of how I understand
the dhamma. I'll be glad to hear any objections!

Best regards for now,

Sarah





 
5236 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Sun May 13, 2001 8:21pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello everybody, I am new here

 
  Erik

Welcome back (btw, I don't think you had mentioned you
would be away).

Thanks for sharing your experience with HH Dalai Lama.
 It was obviously quite an occasion.  I also
'anumodana' your wholesome resolution to continue
studying the Dhamma.

Jon


--- Erik wrote: >  Sarah Procter Abbott
>  
> wrote:
> > Dear Ai Lin,
> > 
> > Warmest regards and welcome to dsg. Eric has been
> > challenging us all with his debates and has become
> a
> > key participant here recently! If you start
> calling
> > him Sam, we'll now understand, thank you!! <Eric,
> the
> > twins in 'Lord of the Flies' are called Sam 'n
> Eric,
> > is this the connection??>
> 
> Sure, Sarah, you know I'm out of town and you can
> talk behind my back 
> cuz I can't defend myself! Ha! Re: Sam 'n Eric ref,
> that has occurred 
> to me more than once. I loved that book as a kid.
> 
> Just, a few minutes ago, get back from seeing His
> Holiness the Dalai 
> Lama, here in Salt Lake City. Wow. The teachings
> were on the Four 
> Noble Truths and the Paramitas, with a heavy dose of
> anatta and 
> paticca samuppada. Please understand just how big a
> head-trip this 
> has been for me to hear the profound and sublime
> teaching on ten-drel 
> (Paticca Sammupada) elaborated here in the land of
> Mormons. I never, 
> ever believed I'd see the day. I never ever believed
> I'd live to see 
> the day my own mom, a strict Mormon herself, would
> purchase tickets 
> to see His Holiness. Even the President of the
> Mormon church met with 
> the Dalai Lama and called him his "brother." This is
> PROOF miracles 
> are possible. 
> 
> As I was perusing the Visuddhimagga on the plane, I
> saw once again 
> the teaching that throughout our limitless rebirths
> that there are 
> few beings who have not been our mothers, fathers,
> brothers, sisters, 
> and given it's Mother's Day tommorrow, this
> meditation couldn't have 
> come at a better time. What a weekend!
> 
> Today's session began with the Dalai Lama praising
> the Wisdom of the 
> Theras as the foundation of all Buddhadhamma, and
> began the teaching 
> by requesting the contigent of Theravada monks
> sharing the stage with 
> him to recite verses for everyone present. To hear
> the chants of both 
> traditions echoing beside one another and the whole
> thing nearly 
> overwhelmed me with gratitude, love, and tears. And
> of course hearing 
> that from someone I consider one of my two lamas
> merely encourages my 
> further studies in the Theravada Abhidhamma to lay
> the complete 
> foundation for everything else. Just thought I'd
> write in while it's 
> all still so fresh and share this wonderful stuff
> with all here in 
> dsg.
> 
> May all beings have happiness and cause of happiness
> May all beings be free from suffering and cause of
> suffering
> May all beings neverr be separated from perfect
> happiness
> May all beings abide in perfect equanimity, free
> from the poijnsons 
> of greed, hatred, and delusion
> 



 
5237 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Sun May 13, 2001 8:28pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] notes from Bkk - the hindrances

 
  --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Sarah -
> 
> In a message dated 5/9/01 2:21:31 AM Eastern
> Daylight Time, 
> Sarah  writes:
> 
> 
> > 3. HINDRANCE to development of satipatthana. The
> only
> > hindrance is the last one, ignorance. The other
> > hindrances are to the development of samatha only.
> > 
> > 
> > 9. NIBBANA. Someone asked how a sankhara citta
> > cognizes nibbana, an asankhara reality,. Response
> 'Why
> > not?"
> > 
> ==================================
>        The above two strike me as less than optimal
> answers. # 9 simply 
> offers no explanation. Without some detailed
> clarification, # 3 appears to be 
> simply false. Sorry to be a nay-sayer, but this is
> how I see these.

On #3, see the following excerpt from the
Abhidhammattha Sangaha translation by Bhikkhu Bodhi
(CMA p. 267):

"#8:  Six hindrances:  the hindrances of (1) sensual
desire, (2) ill will, (3) sloth and torpor, (4)
restlessness and worry, (5) doubt, (6) ignorance.

Guide to #8:  The hindrances are so called because
they obstruct the way to a heavenly rebirth and to the
attainment of Nibbana.  According to the commentary
the hindrances are mental factors which prevent
unarisen wholesome states from arising and which do
not allow arisen wholesome states to endure.  The
first five hindrances are the major obstacles to the
attainment of the jhaanas, the sixth hindrance is the
major obstacle to the arising of wisdom."
[end quote]

The view generally espoused nowadays is, I believe,
that the hindrances are all hindrances to the arising
of wisdom (this view is of course consistent with the
idea that development of the jhanas is necessary for
the attainment of the path).

Jon



 
5238 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Sun May 13, 2001 8:56pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Kusala etc. - Erik

 
  Eric

Just a question on a point from your post to Joyce
that you have mentioned before.

> Hi Joyce,
> 
> You bring up the idea that Robert mentioned, the
> notion that it is 
> quite possible to become attached to kusala. I think
> it is very 
> important to be aware of what both yourself and
> Robert mention, 
> namely, not getting attached to a "doer" behind it.
> Of course this is 
> exactly the logic behind any activity from the
> perspective of 
> Prajnaparamita, and I do not disagree with you een a
> little bit on 
> this point. 
> 
> What I have been addressing, mainly, is not putting
> the cart before 
> the horse. There has to be kusala in place, first,
> before panna is 
> even remotely possible. It really is a requirement.

It seems to me that we come to this life with
accumulated tendencies (is this the same as your
'stocks of merit', I wonder?) of various kinds of
kusala, including the kusala that is panna.  [How
otherwise would a boy from a good Mormon family
gravitate to the dhamma!]  These tendencies, again
including panna, are the result of kusala
performed/developed in previous lives.  What then is
the basis for the idea that more kusala is needed
before panna can arise in this life?  The main
condition for that must surely be to meet the teaching
again in a form which is understandable to us.

Jon

> That people can 
> become attached to kusala, to me, represents a far
> less risky 
> proposition than going full-bore into the wisdom
> teachings and trying 
> to skip the dualistic realities of the Dhamma that
> distinguishes 
> between conventional phenomena based on their
> caharacteristics.
>
> It is what I perceive as a lack of balance that I am
> questioning. And 
> really, what's the worst that can happen if you
> diligently strive to 
> cultivate kusala states of mind and fail in
> awakening to supramundane 
> insight in this lifetime? I think the result is far
> better than 
> failing at BOTH kusala AND insight! At least if
> there is a large 
> stock of merit, then the conditions will certainly
> arise to come into 
> contact with the Dharma later on, and one will
> additionally encounter 
> toall the conditions necessary to practice the
> wisdom aspect of the 
> Dhamma to bring it to fruition.



 
5239 From: Erik 
Date: Sun May 13, 2001 11:02pm
Subject: Re: Kusala etc. - Erik

 
  --- Jonothan Abbott  wrote:
> Eric

Hi JonAthan, :)

> It seems to me that we come to this life with
> accumulated tendencies (is this the same as your
> 'stocks of merit', I wonder?) of various kinds of
> kusala, including the kusala that is panna.  [How
> otherwise would a boy from a good Mormon family
> gravitate to the dhamma!]  These tendencies, again
> including panna, are the result of kusala
> performed/developed in previous lives.  What then is
> the basis for the idea that more kusala is needed
> before panna can arise in this life?  The main
> condition for that must surely be to meet the teaching
> again in a form which is understandable to us.

I was referring to (and I should have been more specific) lokuttara 
panna here. Definitely one needs to have abandoned akusala to a high 
degree and have accumulated a lot of kusala. Otherwise the conditions 
won't arise to actualize this.

For example, I am thinking about yesterday's event. There were over 
ten thousand people there all listening to the sublime teachings of 
paticca samuppada. How many of those hearing those teachings 
yesterday will realize this sublime teaching directly in this 
lifetime?

It is one thing to have the kamma to hear these teachings; it is an 
entirely different thing to have all the appropriate causes and 
conditions such that one will be able to penetreate their essence.

I tend to concentrate on this wisdom aspect of the path a lot, 
because kusala is great but insufficient. But also, if one has poor 
conditions, then big stocks of merit are necessary to clear away the 
obstructions brought about by unfavorable conditions, so that one may 
find favorable enough circumstances for actual development of this 
type of wisdom. And that in itself is no small feat.

 
5240 From: Erik 
Date: Sun May 13, 2001 11:02pm
Subject: Re: Kusala etc. - Erik

 
  --- Jonothan Abbott  wrote:
> Eric

Hi JonAthan, :)

> It seems to me that we come to this life with
> accumulated tendencies (is this the same as your
> 'stocks of merit', I wonder?) of various kinds of
> kusala, including the kusala that is panna.  [How
> otherwise would a boy from a good Mormon family
> gravitate to the dhamma!]  These tendencies, again
> including panna, are the result of kusala
> performed/developed in previous lives.  What then is
> the basis for the idea that more kusala is needed
> before panna can arise in this life?  The main
> condition for that must surely be to meet the teaching
> again in a form which is understandable to us.

I was referring to (and I should have been more specific) lokuttara 
panna here. Definitely one needs to have abandoned akusala to a high 
degree and have accumulated a lot of kusala. Otherwise the conditions 
won't arise to actualize this.

For example, I am thinking about yesterday's event. There were over 
ten thousand people there all listening to the sublime teachings of 
paticca samuppada. How many of those hearing those teachings 
yesterday will realize this sublime teaching directly in this 
lifetime?

It is one thing to have the kamma to hear these teachings; it is an 
entirely different thing to have all the appropriate causes and 
conditions such that one will be able to penetreate their essence.

I tend to concentrate on this wisdom aspect of the path a lot, 
because kusala is great but insufficient. But also, if one has poor 
conditions, then big stocks of merit are necessary to clear away the 
obstructions brought about by unfavorable conditions, so that one may 
find favorable enough circumstances for actual development of this 
type of wisdom. And that in itself is no small feat.

 
5241 From: Alex 
Date: Sun May 13, 2001 11:12pm
Subject: some questions on practice: Re: Kusala etc; Re: noting "others" (?)

 
  Dear Bruce and Robert,

   While reading those excellent posts of questions and answers, I 
came up with a very naive idea.

   Let's look at a lotus flower.

   Before being a flower, it was a little bud in the muddy water.  It 
got all of the nourishments from that muddy water.  Gradually, it 
grew stronger and stronger with its not-so-pure environment.  Then, 
it rose above the water level.  Before it knows what's happening, it 
blooms into one of the most beautiful flowers in this world.

Respectfully,
Alex Tran

 
5242 From: Erik 
Date: Sun May 13, 2001 11:25pm
Subject: Re: Hello everybody, I am new here

 
  --- Robert Kirkpatrick 
 wrote:
> Dear Erik,
> This is really nice news. It sounds like the Dalai Lama might
> have preceeded you in investigating the Theravada. He is very
> understanding and evenhanded to say this.
> I guess any qualms you might have had about studying within 2
> traditions are gone, although I have a feeling that you- an
> uncommon man- had very few anyway.

It has never been a question in Tibetan Buddhism that the Theravada 
is correct Dhamma. Never. I was approaching it from that perspective 
to begin with. Also, with the intention of validating the calim that 
tnere is nothing taught there that lacks direct precedent in the 
Suttas. So far this has been confirmed in every way. The Dalai Lama 
said this exact thing again yesterday, that all the Tibetan teachings 
are points found in the Suttas which have been given greater emphasis.

To be clear, I have never had any qualms about studying Theravada, 
nor have I sought or needed anyone's approval to do so. I have always 
felt a profound connection to the Theravada (I did get my start in 
the Dhamma with Walpola Rahula's "What the Buddha Taught" after all), 
and just as great a love for it as for Tibetan Buddhism--just that my 
present accumulations mean that I have no intention of switching my 
present lineage for another. HOWEVER, that does not mean I don't want 
to understand the Theravada presentation thoroughly, and adapt what I 
am learning to forge a version of the Dhamma that works best for 
these accumulations. Which is really what each of us has to do anyway.

Thank you for your kind words, Robert, they are appreciated as always.

 
5243 From: Howard 
Date: Sun May 13, 2001 7:53pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] How 'right' is our intention? (was, Introduction and a...

 
  Hi, Jon -

In a message dated 5/13/01 4:48:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Jonothan Abbott writes:


> Howard
> 
> In a message to Sarah and Paul you said:
> 
> >        I agree with you, Paul. I found myself
> > perplexed with regard to 
> > several points of Khun Sujin's reported by you,
> > Sarah. It seems to me that 
> > what KS is talking against, and you, Paul, are
> > talking in favor of, would 
> > usually be considered as a simple instance of right
> > intention. KS *seems* to 
> > me to be following a bit of a fatalistic,
> > volition-is-useless tack. Perhaps I 
> > miss-read her.
> 
> This is perhaps the same point that has been the
> source of some discouragement among one or two of the
> members on this list.  It is indeed a difficult one to
> get a handle on.  I am reminded that many
> non-Buddhists seem to regard the dhamma as fatalistic
> when they first hear it (just an observation, no
> comparison intended here, Howard).
> 
> To say that our intentions are likely to involve
> impure motives (eg. expectations and anticipation) or
> to be premised on an unrealistic sense of our own
> level of understanding is not to suggest that the
> activity in question should not be pursued.  It should
> I think be taken as a welcome reminder of our
> undoubted shortcomings.  We all have the tendency to
> regard a genuine interest in the dhamma as meaning
> that the accumulated akusala/latent tendencies that
> had previously driven our lives should cease to be the
> problem they were.  Yet if we think about it for a
> minute, this is unlikely to be the case. Even in a
> 'wholesome situation' there are bound to be the same
> old unwholesome tendencies manifesting, perhaps in a
> more subtle or devious form but finding an opportunity
> nonetheless.  Moments of true kusala remain relatively
> speaking few and far between (my own experience,
> anyway).
> 
> Mistaking akusala for kusala would surely be fatal to
> the development of understanding or any form of kusala
> for that matter.  Could we say that a healthy
> scepticism about the quality of our mind-states is a
> useful attitude to have?
> 
> Jon
> 
================================
       I have no disagreement at all with the foregoing. If that is all that 
KS was conveying then I have no problem with what she said. (I had sensed an 
odor of fatalism and near-hopelessness in her statements, but, evidentally, I 
was mistaken.)  
       There is no question that we are carrying out our practice from within 
the midst of ignorance, and this makes that practice constantly vulnerable to 
various pitfalls, some quite subtle, and, for that very reason, all the more 
dangerous. It is the fact that we are so enmeshed in ignorance that makes 
Right View, obtained from the Buddhadhamma, such an important factor of the 
Noble Eightfold Path. A true bodhisatta can probably dispense with external 
guidance to a great extent, but there are not very many such folks in the 
world ;-), and the rest of us ne